Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Self-governing Hospitals

1. Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the views of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte commissioned by his Department on the self-governing trust implications from St. James's hospital, Leeds and Leeds general infirmary; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): No, Sir. The appraisals are confidential documents prepared to help inform my assessment of proposed national health service trusts.

Mr. Battle: That answer is most disappointing because the budget submissions from Leeds general infirmary and St. James's are based on massive underestimates of inflation and on land sales and a large increase in private beds, and it is widely believed that a third of the applicants for self-governing trust status are already massively overspending on their capital budgets. Why cannot the Department make available to the House a full appraisal including all the financial facts, so that the Government can be fully publicly accountable for budget decisions in this crucial area?

Mr. Waldegrave: We are fully accountable and I stand accountable to the House. A range of different advice was offered to us and there would be no more point in publishing the bits that the hon. Gentleman wants than there would any other bits. They were my decisions, taken against the background of the information available to me.

Mr. Batiste: But is not the reality that those two great hospitals, St. James's and Leeds general infirmary, are among the largest in Europe and that the only way in which they can fulfil their potential and deliver the best service to their patients—which after all, is what it is all about—is by stripping away excessive layers of bureaucracy? In today's world, is not self-governing status within the NHS the best way of achieving what really matters, which is patient care?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend knows these hospitals well and he puts his finger on the fundamental point.

Many of the people who object to the return of those hospitals to management from within the hospital probably objected when the bureaucratic system was set up from which they are now escaping.

Family Health Service

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review the annual budgeting system of family health service authorities.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): From next year, it will be for regional health authorities to determine the allocations which are given to family health services authorities and to ensure that they have adequate internal financial arrangements.

Mr. French: I accept in principle the idea of annual budgeting by family health services authorities, but does my hon. Friend accept that the establishment of new doctors' surgeries, particularly in urban areas, requires some co-ordination between the purchase of land and the design and construction of buildings? Does not a rigid annual system with a strict limit on the 12-month budgeting period work to the detriment of the creation of new surgeries?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has a longstanding constituency interest in the arrangements for distributing the substantial resources for the premises improvement scheme. More than £6 million was spent last year on such schemes in his family health services area and he will know that 67 of the 87 practices there have benefited. However, it is important to continue to ensure that the vast resources put into practitioner services are properly and effectively distributed. If there are aspects that we can look at more carefully, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Kennedy: Given the significant contractual arrangements in the family doctor service, particularly during the past year or 18 months, and the anxiety that was expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the likely impact of some of those changes on employment prospects for female general practitioners, what evidence does the Minister have of the continuing employment on a part-time or full-time basis of female general practitioners?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I share his concern that we should continue to use women doctors in the NHS as well as we can. Half the medical students now are female and they should have an important part to play. The general practitioner's contract has meant that the specialties that many women doctors traditionally took up are particularly popular. We are watching the way in which women doctors are used. For the first time they can be employed as part-time principals, but they have expressed concern about the way in which they are likely to be treated by some male principals—[Interruption.] I have regular meetings with the organisations representing women doctors to ensure that we do not need to issue further guidance and that their skills are being fully used. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could these Christmas greetings below the Gangway be exchanged outside the Chamber?

NHS Trusts

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in publishing the budgets of national health service trusts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): There are no plans to publish NHS trust budgets.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I fully accept my hon. Friend's comments. He may be interested to learn that, owing to the illegibility of my profession's handwriting, what should have appeared as "publicising benefits" has appeared on the Order Paper as "publishing budgets". Despite that, will he confirm that he will encourage national health service trusts to apply some of their budgets to promoting the benefits of NHS trusts to our constituents, notwithstanding the pessimism of my trade union, the British Medical Association?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the benefits of computerising prescriptions—they will in future be more legible. He is also right to stress the importance to patients of the improvements that come from trusts. The Kingston Hospital Trust, which serves my hon. Friend's constituency, was recently approved by my right hon. Friend. It promises to set specific waiting times for patients, to open evening and weekend clinics where there is substantial demand and to set down and follow discharge procedures so that GPs are fully involved in patient discharges. Those are the sort of improvements in the quality of service that can come from an imaginatively run trust.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Although the Minister has made it clear today that he will not publish NHS trust budgets, will he make public the full costs of wining and dining those concerned with the opting-out process? Can he justify the expenditure of £10,000 last Tuesday night on a Banqueting house booze-up for those concerned with opting out at a time when a health authority such as Wakefield has had to close 100 beds because of a lack of Government funding?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks a question and then establishes that it would be otiose to answer it because he already knows the answer. What is important is to establish the benefits that come from improving the management of NHS hospitals through their establishment as trusts. The accountability that matters is accountability to patients through the contracting system and the improvement in quality of service that it will provide.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend underline the point that, whether it is benefits or budgets, the role of the Audit Commission has been significantly enhanced by the National Health Service and Community Care Act? Will he ensure that the Department gives every possible support to the work of the Audit Commission, which does its best to ensure the best value for money for patients from the much-enhanced sums that we are now spending on the health service?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The Audit Commission has an important part to play in drawing attention to the opportunities, through more effective

management, to obtain better value for money for the taxpayer and a better quality of health for the patient. That should be the objective of us all.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister aware that there is some anxiety among social workers that there may not be adequate provision in national health service trust hospitals for social workers, bearing in mind the fact that we are trying to move people into the community and that social workers are employed by local authorities? Is he satisfied that the budgets provide adequately for such social services?

Mr. Dorrell: I am satisfied that the contracting system provides the mechanism whereby district health authorities will be able to provide the seamless robe that is essential to proper health and social care, to ensure that an individual benefits first from health care, then from community care and then from social care support when appropriate. The contracting system provides the mechanism for ensuring that all that is in place.

Health Inequalities

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to reduce health inequalities.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is a fundamental objective of our national health service reforms to give patients, wherever they live in the United Kingdom and regardless of how well off they are, better health care and greater choice.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that it is now 10 years since the Black committee report on inequalities in health? Can he explain why, in those 10 years, inequalities in health have got worse instead of better? Is not that a damning indictment of the abject failure of the Government to tackle the problems?

Mr. Waldegrave: The thing to remember is that everyone's health has got better in the past 10 years, as it did in the previous 10 years. Life expectancy has increased by about two years for everyone. I am not going to say that our Government have abolished inequalities in health care any more than the Labour Government did when they were in power. However, we are introducing some powerful new mechanisms that will help. For example, the GP contract, although it has been unpopular with some GPs, is raising the level of immunology—for example, child immunology—in the places where it was worst. When Opposition Members say that they are going to repeal that contract, will they be satisfied with lowering the levels of child immunology again?

Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. Friend may have omitted to mention another important part of the reduction in inequalities with regard to the contract, as elderly people now have regular checks, which was not previously the case. Can he give us any information about that?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. That, too, is an important weapon to help us move away from those problems, which occur throughout the world. Another relevant matter is that, under the new financial system, health districts will for the first time have the duty to


produce a proper health plan for their area, taking into account the problems of social deprivation that they may face. That should also help.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that under the health plan, school children in Strathclyde are receiving letters telling them that they will no longer get eye tests in school and that they will have to go to hospital? Is that the type of planning that he wishes to see?

Mr. Waldegrave: What I am aware of—although I hope that I do not embarrass my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland by saying this—is that the situation in Scotland at least shows that there is no simple connection between resources and health, because Scotland spends rather more than we do in England per head, but has no better health statistics.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the millions and millions that the Government have rightly put into the national health service, regional and local health authorities are at best muscle-bound and at worst insensitive in much of their public relations? Will he bear that in mind and try to do something about it?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is important that health districts and regions should have clearly designated spokesmen to answer questions that it is legitimate for people to ask them. I think that I should be criticised in the House if I encouraged them to launch large public relations campaigns. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. There must always be a clear contact point for inquiries from the public at district and regional level.

Self-governing Hospitals

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received over self-governing hospitals.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have received many representations about national health service trusts.

Mr. Winnick: I can well imagine it. Is it of no concern to the Government that there is no public support for these substantial changes? For example, in my borough, at the district general hospital, there is overwhelming opposition to what is being proposed. Why are the Government pursuing this path of Thatcherite dogma, instead of dealing with the financial crisis in the health service? It would be far better to deal with the financial crisis, which is due to underfunding, than to gamble with people's health by making unnecessary changes.

Mr. Waldegrave: I spent a large part of yesterday at the Royal Free hospital, where I met many people—doctors, nurses and health service workers—who are strongly in favour of the changes. They may all have been passionate Thatcherites, but I am not sure that they were. Some may even have voted for the Labour party. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there is growing support. One should consider the hon. Gentleman's area, where the National Union of Public Employees sent out 2,700 ballot forms. Four hundred came back and 100 were actually in favour of the trust—I suppose that they went to the wrong people. It is really not very serious.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When considering the representations made to him by hospitals or authorities

that want to opt out and become self-governing trusts within the national health service, does my right hon. Friend give more weight to the views of members of the area health authorities, consultants and other doctors, nurses, paramedics, other staff and patients, or to those of the rather remote chairmen of the regional health authorities?

Mr. Waldegrave: I should probably attach the most weight to the quality of the submission made by the hospital or other unit in question. Those are the people who know most about a hospital and whose future rests with it. If they present good proposals—as they did this year—it is principally to those proposals that we respond, although we also take advice from the districts and regions.

Mr. Ashton: Although the Secretary of State keeps saying that there will be consultation, he never announces what sort of consultation it will be and with whom it will take place. Who will he consult before the trusts are set up—the patients, the staff or the public? If he is not satisfied with the NUPE ballot, why does not he organise a ballot himself? Is he aware that no consultation has taken place with Bassetlaw hospital, except that which I have tried to organise, with no help at all?

Mr. Waldegrave: Ballots are not at all the right way to improve the system of management in a great service such as the national health service. We have been trying to carry out the statutory duties imposed on us by the Act that was passed earlier this year and, above all—as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—to study the representations made to us by the hospitals themselves.

Mr. Paice: Following the undoubted success of hospital trusts, will my right hon. Friend find a mechanism whereby hospitals that are not currently part of the NHS—for instance, former military hospitals such as the one in my constituency from which the RAF is to withdraw—can become independent trusts within the NHS and thus build on the success of this initiative?

Mr. Waldegrave: I know the hospital to which my hon. Friend refers very well; indeed, I talked about it to the regional chairman and officers when I was in Cambridge last Friday. I am not sure that the establishment of a trust is the most likely solution in that instance, but the regional authority is willing to consider any financial proposals that make sense and could save the hospital.

Mr. Robin Cook: Can we tempt the Secretary of State to tell us something about the independent representations that he commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte? Can he confirm that that organisation concluded that only 14 of the 56 applications that he approved were financially sound? If that was not its conclusion, why does the right hon. Gentleman keep refusing to publish its report? Should not the public have the right to know the figures and should not Parliament have the right to debate them?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the nature of the process. During the summer, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and many other advisers produced a variety of advice, much of which was passed back to the trust units and altered in the course of dialogue


with them. It is as futile to ask for that particular piece of paper as it is to ask for thousands of others that were made available to me.

Prestwich Hospital

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the chairman of the North West regional health authority to discuss the future of Prestwich hospital.

Mr. Dorrell: The future development of hospital facilities at Prestwich hospital is a matter for the local health authority.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread opposition among my constituents to plans to develop a hypermarket on part of the hospital site? Will he join me in urging the chairman of the regional authority to tell his counterpart in Salford to withdraw the plan and thus save my constituents from serious environmental and commercial damage?

Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a planning matter that falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Nevertheless, I cannot be blind to the fact that the £12·5 million that is in prospect if the planning proposal goes ahead would allow for a £6·5 million investment in new regional mental illness facilities on the Prestwich site and a further £6 million to improve provision for the mentally ill in the community. At a time when we are constantly—and rightly—pressed to provide investment to improve facilities for the mentally ill, that is a major advantage to which, as I have said, I cannot be blind.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that that hospital in Prestwich and other hospitals throughout the north-west region and Cumbria send patients to St. Paul's eye hospital in Liverpool for jag laser treatment? Is he further aware that that hospital is also under threat and that it is causing deep concern throughout the north-west? Will he take some action to ensure that people in Liverpool, my constituents and people throughout the region are satisfied about the future of those services?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. The "threat" in Prestwich is that there should be a £12·5 million investment programme to improve hospital facilities and facilities for care in the community to provide for the mentally ill. That is the sort of threat that we want to see to develop an improving health service for all patients in the health service and especially, in this context, for the mentally ill.

Out-patient Departments

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been or are being undertaken to improve out-patient departments.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We are committed to improving out-patient departments. We have recently issued advice on the physical environment, questions of skill mix and on appointment systems to reduce waiting times at out-patient departments. In addition, we are

funding 10 demonstration projects as part of our quality initiative, addressed particularly to out-patient departments.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for the initiatives that have been taken to improve out-patient facilities. The improvements that have been made over the years in North Warwickshire district health authority are very much appreciated. How many new out-patient attendances were there in 1979 and how does that figure compare with those today?

Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a considerable increase in the number of people coming to out-patient departments. There were 36 million out-patient attendances last year, which is 7 per cent. higher than in 1979. In my hon. Friend's health authority, the figures have increased by 20 per cent. over the past four years.

Mr. Cousins: What out-patient facilities does the Minister plan for the over-85s? Six old people's homes have closed in Newcastle as a result of poll tax capping and two long-stay geriatric hospitals are closing as a result of hospital cuts, with the inmates and patients being put up for auction. Clearly, we shall need a lot more facilities at out-patient departments in hospitals to deal with the consequences of that, so what plans does the Minister have?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that he has a first-rate health authority in Newcastle which is addressing precisely those problems. Its work on implementing community care is going very well. The point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a moment ago about the need for general practitioners to offer their patients who are over 75 an annual visit to check on their welfare and well-being will also help to improve the quality of care. We are seeing improved services for the elderly. Our community care proposals will challenge health and local authorities to work together successfully to ensure that there is comprehensive and integrated cover.

Mr. Tredinnick: Has not the treatment of out-patients improved immeasurably over the past 10 years? Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of out-patients being treated at the moment in Leicester is at a record level?

Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I can, almost without doubt, confirm the Leicestershire figure, but my hon. Friend will understand that I shall write to him if I am wrong. Out-patient departments are the interface between community services, general practitioners and hospitals. We are concerned that a recent survey found that 15 per cent. of people with out-patient appointments failed to show up in one area. We must be sure that our appointment systems are effective and that people are well treated when they reach the out-patient departments. We must also ensure that we are making proper use of skill mix and that the quality of the environment and experience is as good as it can be. We shall issue further advice to health authorities in the new year on the basis of the lessons that we have learnt from the first six demonstration projects.

Psychiatric Patients

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Government's policies for introducing assessment for patients leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into the community.

Mr. Dorrell: Guidance on the introduction of assessment for patients leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals was issued to health and local authorities on 10 September.

Mr. Clarke: In view of the great distress that has been caused to many patients who are leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals supposedly to go into community care, which simply does not exist, when precisely will the Government implement section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? Does the Minister recall that the former Secretary of State for Health announced, after over three years of negotiations with local councils, that the Government's National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and their provisions for community care transcended section 7, and that once that had been monitored, the Government would decide what they were going to do? Now that the Government have abandoned their proposals for community care until 1993, what will happen to the patients? Is that community care in the 1990s, or is it saying to those patients, "Look forward to cardboard homes and cardboard hopes"?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have not abandoned community care; we are committed to implementing it. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing community care for mentally ill people on an accelerated timetable. The mental illness specific grant will make available £30 million of expenditure from next April. Capital approvals to local authorities will make available a further £10 million from next April. The capital loans fund has provided £10 million this year to invest in reprovision for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. The initiative that I announced in July for homeless mentally ill people provides £5 million for that client group. Approximately £55 million has been made available by the Government in the current year to invest in improving the facilities available to treat mentally ill people in the community.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Government's proposals for improved assessment of people leaving long-term psychiatric hospitals and, more important, the provision of a key worker for each patient to co-ordinate the services available to him, but will the Government support and promote the additional voluntary service of Citizens Advocacy, a branch of which is in my constituency, which provides a friend—not a professional—to help formerly mentally ill or mentally handicapped people reintegrate into the community?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to an interesting and useful contribution to care for mentally ill people. I welcome the initiative that he referred to and the opportunities that it represents. The care programme approach that I announced on 10 September provides, for the first time, an ordered framework to assess the needs of

each mentally ill individual and to ensure that they are met in the community. My hon. Friend referred to advocacy schemes, which have a part to play in that process.

Mr. Rooker: Does not the Minister appreciate that it is the belief of millions of carers and the cared-for that. the Government have abandoned their community care programme? Sticking to the narrow confines of the question, does the Minister accept that the guidance for the assessment must be much wider than that which is published? How does it meet, for example, the criticism of the MIND survey, which mentioned the lack of choice and dignity, the lack of keys and the lack of the chance to keep pets? The survey in the west midlands found that virtually no social activity is offered in the private residential sector. How can it meet the problems that are caused by the lack of co-ordination between health authorities, social service departments and the planning authorities? In our large cities, hostels for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people are located next to another hostel, across the road from another hostel or round the corner from another hostel. Care in a community of hostels is not what patients or their families want.

Mr. Dorrell: It may be true that there is a belief in the field that community care has been abandoned, but it is quite simply wrong. When it has repeatedly been stated to be wrong, it does no one any good for the hon. Gentleman to repeat it from the Dispatch Box. As regards the suggestion that the care programme approach is too narrow, that was out to consultation throughout most of the summer, which offered an opportunity for those in the field to argue for the widening that the hon. Gentleman advocated. He did not do so and most of the people in the field did not do so at that time. The guidance that we published on 10 September represents the first structured attempt to ensure that the needs of an individual mentally ill person are assessed and that effective machinery is put in place to support that individual in the community.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider respite care for the relatives or friends of psychiatric patients who return home? As well as the carers of psychiatric patients, many other carers need a break and we must cater for their needs in future programmes.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We recognise that respite care is an important part of a proper programme for community care for psychiatric patients and we shall ensure that provision is made.

Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport to discuss staffing levels.

Mr. Dorrell: I have no plans to visit Stepping Hill hospital. Staffing levels in hospitals are a matter for local decision.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Graham Pink on having the courage to describe so movingly in The Guardian and on television the major problems faced in Stepping Hill on the night shift on geriatric wards? Will the hon. Gentleman condemn the


district health authority for suspending Mr. Pink for his whistle-blowing activities rather than solving the problems at that hospital? Does he agree that that is deplorable?

Mr. Dorrell: No, Sir. I shall not join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mr. Pink. The trouble with Mr. Pink's allegations is that he does not have the support of his colleagues, the clinicians in the hospital or the health authority's chief nursing officer; nor can it be established on any of the published criteria that his allegations are justified.

Mr. Favell: The best way to improve hospital services in Stockport is to amalgamate Stockport infirmary with Stepping Hill hospital, which are both in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that the consultant in charge of the accident and emergency department at the infirmary has been pushing for that amalgamation for years, yet it is opposed by the Labour party because of cynical, short-term opportunism? The Labour party is prepared to put lives at risk to buy short-term popularity. At Stockport infirmary there is no blood bank or intensive care unit and there are facilities to deal only with broken bones and ear, nose and throat problems. Unless a person suffers from such problems, he has to be taken by ambulance to Stepping Hill hospital, down one of the busiest roads in the north of England. That is the Labour party's wish.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, but he is not quite right in every detail. Although the Labour party here opposes amalgamation, the National Union of Public Employees supports it, so my hon. Friend has support from a wider section of the community than he might have expected. He is right to draw attention to the improvement that can come from the investment programme to which he referred. I hope that it will be possible to provide for that within a reasonable time scale.

Health Service Financing

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities to discuss the financing of the health service.

Mr. Waldegrave: I look forward to meeting him on 31 January when I shall speak at his association's annual reception. I am sure that we shall discuss financial matters there.

Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend greatly encouraged by the warm welcome with which his speech last week was received by the National Association of Health Authorities and the other caring professions? Coupled with the clear commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to cut junior doctors' working hours, does my right hon. Friend believe that that shows without doubt that the Government believe in a health service for everyone, financed primarily out of taxation and free at the point of delivery?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to take the opportunity provided by his question to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and to her  including Dr. Diana

Walford and Dr. Stephen Hunter, who have achieved what will turn out to be an historic breakthrough on the long-standing matter of junior doctors' hours.

Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State launch an urgent investigation into the funding crisis gripping the national health service in Bradford? Does he understand that, because of that cash crisis, there is widespread dismay at the fact that the Bradford NHS trust has gone ahead and still greater dismay at the fact that the chairman is a millionaire business man from Wakefield who knows nothing about the NHS in Bradford and still less about the health care needs of the people of Bradford?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is astonishing that the Labour party should regret the fact that some of the best business men want to give their skills to the health service. That action will benefit the people of Bradford and that principle will benefit us all more widely.

Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although many Conservative Members are entirely behind the reforms that were introduced by his predecessor and which he carried through, in several areas—not least the Aylesbury Vale health authority and Stoke Mandeville hospital—a serious situation is developing as the hospital seeks to make ends meet before the new regime comes in next spring? As a result, there have been serious cuts in the number of operations performed. Will my right hon. Friend look at the overall costs of writing off the debts of those areas that are in serious financial difficulty, before the new regime comes in next spring, so that they can start with a clean slate?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is understood that some of the London districts will not have to remove their deficits before the beginning of the new system. However, it would be a bad managerial signal to allow those that have overspent their budgets again to pre-empt resources that should be available to the whole of the health service, including those that have achieved their budgets.

Mr. Robin Cook: Hon. Members of all parties have pointed out to the Secretary of State the immense pressure on health authorities from the obligation to remove their deficits. May I remind him that three years ago this week, one of his predecessors found an extra £100 million for a similar crisis in the hospital service? As beds are now closing faster than they did three years ago and as waiting lists are now longer than they were three years ago, why cannot the Secretary of State do the same? Why cannot the Government, who have written off the debts of every privatised industry, now write off the deficits of our hospitals?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it has been a long-standing objective to bring districts back into balance. That is the right thing to do and we shall continue to do it, although, as I said, there will be some flexibility in London. That remains the position.

Transplants

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advances have been made in transplant treatments in the last 11 years.

Mr. Waldegrave: Over the past 11 years, there have been unprecedented advances in the number of organs


transplanted, in the development of new forms of transplant and in improving the results of transplants. The Government remain wholly committed to the organ transplant programme.

Mr. Dunn: Although I acknowledge that the United Kingdom's record on transplants is excellent, will the Secretary of State confirm the steps being taken by his Department to overcome the shortage in the supply of donor organs?

Mr. Waldegrave: The main thing that the House can do is to redouble its appeals to people to carry donor cards. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to what has been done. It is an example of a wholly new health service activity—an almost completely new activity—in the past 10 years. There was virtually none of this under the previous Labour Government, which shows the development of services that we have been able to achieve.

Mr. Galbraith: It will come as a disappointment to the House that the Government's only contribution to increasing the number of donor organs is to increase the number of donor cards carried by individuals. Although that is successful to a limited extent, it is not proving sufficient to deal with the continuing problem of the shortage of donor organs. Have the Government no other plans to increase the number of donor organs available for transplantation?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman quite likely knows, various other matters are under consideration. The United Kingdom transplant service, which is funded centrally from my Department, will continue to receive our support. We have considered alternative schemes, such as the opting-out proposal, which has been raised in some European countries. It has not found much favour with us and, from the expression on the hon. Gentleman's face, it does not find much favour with him.

Speech Therapy

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his plans for the future of the speech therapy profession.

Mr. Virginia Bottomley: Speech therapy services have expanded and developed considerably over the past 10 years. We are working with the profession on plans for further improvements.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge that, despite those efforts, there is still a chronic shortage of properly qualified speech therapists to treat communication-handicapped patients within the health service? Will she further acknowledge that urgent action is needed to increase the recruitment and remuneration in this valuable service and that the way forward is not to establish a tier of partially trained therapists acting as fully trained therapists within the service, but to put all the effort behind fully and properly qualified speech therapists?

Mrs. Bottomley: There has been an 82 per cent. increase in qualified speech therapists over the past 10 years and they are better paid than they used to be. However, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point that there are rising expectations of the number of tasks that speech therapists can rightly perform. It is important to consider the skill mix and to ensure that qualified speech therapists are used

for the tasks for which their skills are necessary. We are also carrying forward plans for clinical audit. We have regular discussions with the College of Speech Therapists and we will continue to consider all the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Jessel: In view of the standard of some of their speeches, will my hon. Friend provide speech therapy for the Labour party? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: That is a little bit wide.

Mrs. Bottomley: I shall ask the Department's therapy officer to look at that aspect.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps the Government intend to take to reduce hospital waiting lists.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS Management Executive is to agree tough targets for the reduction of long waits with all 14 regional health authorities. We are also continuing the special waiting list fund to help health authorities reduce the number of patients who wait excessively.

Mr. Wigley: As the ENT in-patient waiting list in my area is 98 weeks and worsening, whereas ophthalmology, which has been given additional resources, has a reducing waiting list, will the Minister accept the general thesis that if more resources were given to hospitals, the waiting lists would lessen?

Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is on the Treasury Bench and I know that he will note the hon. Gentleman's points. The numbers waiting for a long time have reduced. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that 50 per cent. of hospital admissions are immediate. The average wait for those who come in off the waiting list is six weeks and we have seen great progress on the numbers who have to wait for over a year. We have made it clear that we want to take more time and care over reducing waiting times. At a time of increasing activity, it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman not to recognise the progress that is being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ms. Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Ms. Quin: Can the Prime Minister explain how the creation of hereditary baronetcies fits in with his idea of the classless society?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot ask about the royal prerogative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is a long convention and it is outside our rules. The hon. Lady must try a different tack.

Ms. Quin: Is it true that the Prime Minister recommended the creation of a hereditary baronetcy? If that is the case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just as bad.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we do not bring the royal family into our discussions here.—[Interruption.]

Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is absolutely disgraceful behaviour. The House knows the rules about this.

Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend share the enthusiasm of Conservative Members for the European Community's decision to lift sanctions against new investment in South Africa? Does he share my belief that only through that sort of investment can we bring peace and harmony to South Africa? Does he also share the belief of Oliver Tambo, expressed in his statement at the weekend, that the only people who wish to maintain comprehensive sanctions against South Africa are extreme elements of the African National Congress and the British Labour party?

The Prime Minister: The European Council's agreement over the weekend to lift the ban on new investment in South Africa was a positive step for which Britain has been pressing for some time. I hope that other Governments will soon follow the European Community's example. The very great changes that we have seen in South Africa in recent years have been welcome. In due course, I hope that they will be able to continue and that we will be able properly to welcome South Africa back wholeheartedly into the African and world community.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of homes being built in Britain is at a lower level than at any time since the first world war?

The Prime Minister: I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that over the recent few years more people have moved into home ownership and we have had a higher quality and standard of housing than ever before.

Mr. Kinnock: I wonder why the Prime Minister is refusing to answer a plain question. I hear what he says, but, as the Government have cut £6 billion from housing investment and imposed the highest mortgage rates in all of history, does he not realise that the Government are responsible for not only the loss of homes but vastly increased homelessness?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that his facts are incorrect. On the quality, nature and quantity of housing, I am happy to match the record of this Government against that of any previous Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister then acknowledge, first, that during the time that he has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister, the Government have made huge cuts in housing budgets? Will he confirm that under this

Government mortgage rates have been higher for longer than ever before and that while the Government have halved housing investment they have doubled homelessness?

The Prime Minister: In his list the right hon. Gentleman wholly overlooks the remarkable changes made to the voluntary housing movement, housing associations and action on homelessness.

Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Bundesbank, Herr Pail, said the other day that interest rates should be set according to monetary conditions and should not be used to affect the exchange rate? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends agree with that view and that if we use interest rates to maintain the exchange rate, we are likely to have a wider and deeper recession than we need to control inflation?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a clear relationship between interest rate and exchange rate policy. My right hon. Friend referred to the governor of the Bundesbank. The deutschmark is also part of the exchange rate mechanism and Germany has done rather well as a result of that.

Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister read the comments made at the weekend by the Governor of the Bank of England? He said that the Prime Minister's decision, when Chancellor, to cut interest rates in advance of the Tory party conference meant that his party gained a political dividend too early, for which jobs and industry are now paying.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should read all of what the Governor said. He made it clear that the matter was fully discussed with him and that a joint decision was reached.

Sir Marcus Fox: Setting aside the argument that shops should obey the law—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is a very good start.

Sir Marcus Fox: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that there is a huge demand among shoppers and traders alike and an urgent need to allow people to shop on Sundays? Does he agree that the present law should be reformed?

The Prime Minister: The present law on Sunday trading is widely felt to be unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friend made clear. We tried to reform the law, but on that occasion our proposals did not find favour with the House. I can well understand the impatience of hon. Members about the state of the Sunday trading law.

Hon. Members: Obey the law.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: A great deal of the Sunday trading law is bizarre and the time may well be approaching when the Sunday observance lobby should sit down with the r: tail trade to see whether an acceptable compromise can be reached. As the House knows, there is an acceptable law in Scotland which has not wrecked the special significance of Sunday. I should welcome such a law in England.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise at this time of seasonal goodwill the mortgage misery of millions of people who are paying considerably more than would otherwise be the case because of the Government's financial mismanagement during the past few years? Does he recognise that in the north-west an average mortgage of £34,800 is costing £110 a month more than it would have done two and a half years ago?

The Prime Minister: I understand clearly the problems faced by many people with high mortgage rates. The underlying necessity is to get the inflation rate down, and interest rate policy is a necessary part of that.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every week many thousands of British animals are sent to antiquated European slaughterhouses and that they arrive hungary and thirsty, battered and damaged? Will he please take steps to stop this needless cruelty to and suffering of animals?

The Prime Minister: A great deal of that is unattractive. There are laws covering the circumstances in which such exports take place and I shall examine them personally, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: What comfort can the Prime Minister give to my 89-year-old constituent, Mrs. Phyllis Smith, who, like thousands of other elderly people who live in rest homes, can no longer get free incontinence aids from the national health service? What would he advise her to do with bills for £179, such as this one, when she is on income support and cannot afford to buy these aids which are basic essentials of human dignity?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is as aware as anyone in the House that both the general level of provision and the specific level of income support are higher today than at any previous time.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his calm and intelligent approach to the European summit and the negotiations has aroused widespread admiration in my constituency and across the country? My constituents recognise, as he recognises, that we have everything to gain from the negotiations, working out together with our European partners solutions to the many problems that face the European Community.

The Prime Minister: I am certainly grateful to my hon. Friend. It is clear within the EC that on some matters we have a distinct view and we shall sustain it. On those occasions we shall in future, as so often in the past, win the arguments.

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: The Prime Minister has spoken of creating a classless society. What sort of classless society will it be if, as forecast, unemployment once again goes beyond the 2 million mark? Why does he not at least take the advice of the Confederation of British Industry and reduce interest rates without delay?

The Prime Minister: It is because we are determined to bring inflation down and keep it down, not to bring it down artificially at the risk of a greater problem later.

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stewart: Recently, the chairman of British Coal announced record financial profits—the best for 13 years. Recently, our miners produced an all-time productivity record of more than 5 tonnes per man-shift. Recently, the mineworkers' pension scheme announced an increase in pensions of more than 15 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all those people on making those records attainable?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to do so. British Coal and its work force deserve great credit for their achievements, particularly for their recent record level of productivity. It will provide a firm foundation for the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Mallon: Nobody can fail to have been impressed by the Prime Minister's stated conviction that everyone in this country has a right to his or her place in the sun and to equal opportunity. As we approach Christmas, will the right hon. Gentleman ponder on the plight of the Birmingham Six, who face their 16th year in prison for a crime that many believe they have not committed? When he ponders on that, will he join with me in my anger at the words of an Appeal Court judge yesterday—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mallon: —when he said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that case is sub judice.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a date is fixed for the hearing and in advance of that there is no more I can say at the moment.

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Couchman: During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend contact the commander of the British Forces in the Gulf and convey to him the best wishes and prayers of hon. Members in all parts of the House for all our troops as we rise for Christmas? Will he assure General de la Billiêre that our hopes remain high that Saddam Hussein will withdraw his forces from Kuwait without the need for further bloodshed?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those wishes. We owe a tremendous debt to our forces in the Gulf and I am sure that, without exception, we wish them a happy Christmas. I look forward to going out to visit them very shortly after Christmas.
As for the solution of the Gulf crisis, that rests squarely with Saddam Hussein. Time is running out for him. The international community has made it clear that force will be used if Iraq has not withdrawn totally and unconditionally from Kuwait by 15 January. I hope that Saddam Hussein will take that very seriously indeed.

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: As the Government's economic policy is leading to only one consequence, which is higher

unemployment, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that more money is made available under the revenue support grant settlement for areas such as mine, where unemployment is already at double national average levels? Will he ensure that more money is made available in January by that means to alleviate some of the problems of that degree of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The consequence of economic management next year will be lower inflation and renewed growth. My right hon. Friend will make a revenue support grant statement in due course.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statement.

European Council (Rome)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council in Rome on 13 and 14 December, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House.
After the Council itself, I attended a formal joint opening session of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and on economic and monetary union. That was followed by a short working session of each conference, attended respectively by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those meetings were mainly formal and procedural. The conference will start in earnest in January.
Five main subjects were dealt with by the European Council, the first being political union. On that, the Council reached agreement on a long list of items which are to be considered—and that is the operative word—at the intergovernmental conference on political union. The list includes Britain's proposals for closer co-operation on foreign and security policy, better implementation of Community decisions, a role for national Parliaments in the affairs of the Community, better financial accountability and observance of the principle of subsidiarity. Other countries have also added items to the list. Some of them we welcome; others, frankly, are less palatable.
The key, so far as Britain is concerned, is that the issues have simply been put on the table for discussion. None are agreed. All are for consideration. The conclusions of the Council do not constrain or prejudge the intergovernmental conference's decisions, which have to be reached by unanimity. One of our principal objectives in Rome was thus satisfactorily achieved.
The second main item was assistance for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The Community's aim is to support the economic reforms which President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government are introducing, and to help the Soviet Union make proper use of its own resources. We therefore agreed to make available technical assistance to particular sectors of the Soviet economy, and notably to food distribution. We also endorsed the aim of energy co-operation, in which Britain is particularly well placed to play a part.
To meet the Soviet Union's short-term needs, the Community will provide substantial food aid. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I stressed that there should be guarantees that the food actually reaches those for whom it is intended, and does not undermine attempts to make Soviet agriculture more responsive to the market. Those points are reflected in the Council's conclusions.
The Council also recognised the particular difficulties being experienced by eastern European countries as they make the transition to democracy and a market economy, while coping simultaneously with sharp increases in oil prices and the change to hard-currency trading. The Community will contribute, along with other western countries and the international financial institutions, to meeting their financial requirements. It will also provide emergency aid to Bulgaria and Romania, in the form of food and medicines.
Thirdly, the Council discussed the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. It called on all parties to

show the necessary political will to reach a satisfactory agreement, and asked the Commission, as the Community's negotiator, to be in touch with other participants, in order to resolve remaining problems. That refers to agriculture in particular.
We thus achieved another of our main objectives—to ensure that Heads of Government dealt fully with the difficulties in the GATT negotiations and gave a strong signal of the Community's resolve to see a successful outcome. I hope other countries will show themselves no less willing to make progress.
Fourthly, the Council dealt with the situation in the Gulf, and agreed an admirably firm statement. That shows the Community as firmly committed as ever to ensuring Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate Government. The statement makes particular reference to Security Council resolution 678, which envisages the possible use of force if attempts to resolve matters peacefully have not succeeded by 15 January. The Council's discussions made it clear that the Twelve do not accept any linkage whatsoever between Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and progress on other middle eastern issues. Saddam Hussein must not gain from his agression.
Lastly, the Council welcomed the changes which President de Klerk has, with Mr. Mandela, brought about in South Africa. It also decided to lift with immediate effect the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa. That is a step which Britain has been urging for many months. I know the decision will be most welcome to Conservative Members. The Community is committed to lift other restrictive measures as soon as the South African Government take certain additional steps, which they have already promised to do. I underline the importance of that move by the Community, which will encourage further reform and political progress in South Africa. I hope that Europe's example will rapidly be followed by others.
For the sake of completeness, I should make two further points. First, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to complete the single market on time. Secondly, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union on this occasion. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that we shall very shortly table draft treaty amendments to give effect to Britain's proposals for a hard ecu and a European monetary fund.
The Council was marked by a positive and co-operative spirit—despite some subsequent remarks—and by a willingness on the part of all member states to work for solutions which will enable us to go forward as Twelve. There is no doubt that there will be difficult discussions ahead in both the intergovernmental conferences: it would be foolish to deny that, for it is self-evidently true. But the Government's aim will be to work for agreements which are acceptable to this House, and match both Britain's interests and those of Europe as a whole. We made a good start to that end in Rome.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I welcome in particular the summit decisions to provide food aid for the Soviet Union and to take initiatives in creating more effective long-term economic and political relations between the European


Community and the Soviet Union, and to build new and closer relations with the recently freed countries of eastern and central Europe.
We further welcome the Council's declaration of continued further commitment to full implementation of all United Nations Security Council resolutions to secure the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.
There is widespread concern about the failure of the GATT round, so can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he felt that the summit discussions that he has just reported were substantial, and whether he thinks that they will lead to any significant reforms of the common agricultural policy?
The change in the tone of the Government's approach that was evident at the summit is welcome. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what changes of substance there have been in the Government's position? Does the Prime Minister continue in his opposition to the extension of majority voting to those decisions where it would help to improve social policy and to raise environmental standards? The summit communiqué which the Prime Minister accepted, includes a commitment to press ahead with, and to speed up, the social charter action programme. Does the Prime Minister now support that charter, or will he continue the Government's outright opposition to it?
Does the Prime Minister consider that his proposals for the hard ecu are the quicker route to a single currency, as was said by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; or a possible route, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said; or an alternative to currency union, as was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In view of the fact that the Government have completed draft treaty amendments on economic and monetary union, will the Prime Minister make them available to the House before they are tabled at the intergovernmental conference?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that he withdrew all the reservations expressed by the Government at the last Rome summit in October, but that he also expressed the view at the latest summit that he intends to make no radical modifications to the Government's existing policy towards the European Community? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House exactly where he does stand? Or is he waiting to see how long he can sit on the fence, with pleasantry in place of policy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the agreements reached on food aid for the Soviet Union and for eastern Europe, and for his robust support of the Security Council resolutions on Kuwait.
I confirm that there were substantial talks on GATT between the Heads of Government, and that some considerable time was spent on them. There was a general acceptance of the importance of reaching agreement, and a willingness to do so. Our negotiators have clear instructions to use all the negotiating remit they have to reach an agreement—although there is expectation that that will require movement by others, as well as by the European Community.
The common agricultural policy is not directly related to the GATT discussions, but there was some discussion

about the way in which it is working at present, and some private thought that we may need to review it and to consider what changes need to be made.
So far as the substance of policy is concerned—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned qualified majority voting in particular—we are not persuaded that a case has been made for qualified majority voting. Clearly, we will have to examine what comes before us, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, we are not persuaded that a case has yet been made.
On the social charter, what we have said—and what I acknowledged in the discussions that we have had—is that there is a social dimension to the European Community, not least in terms of employment, but that the provisions in the social charter are not generally provisions that we believe to be correct. Our present position on the social charter is as it was some months ago.
On economic and monetary union, the hard ecu remains—as it always has been—a possible route to economic and monetary union. That depends on it being driven by the market and on the choices of Governments, companies and individuals. As to speed, that of course depends on the individual choices exercised—if exercised—by those Governments, companies and individuals. But it is a potential and secure route without many of the risks that we think are attached to the alternatives before us.
I undertake to lay before the House the draft changes that we propose for economic and monetary union at the same time as we present them to our colleagues in Europe. When they are ready, we shall do that.
On our present and future position, we will resolutely support what we perceive to be the British interest in the Community, but we shall do that in the context of trying to build collectively with our partners a better Europe for all of us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us, including a ten-minute Bill and opposed private business at 7 pm. I will allow questions on this important matter to continue until 4·30 pm. The number of hon. Members I am able to call will depend on the brevity of their questions.

Sir Bernard Braine: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive contribution to the discussions, but did he really get the impression that the Twelve are now back on track and are planning for the future of all democratic Europe? Was any real progress made in coordinating policies designed to bring the newly emancipated and long-oppressed countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary into genuine partnership with the rest of us?

The Prime Minister: There was discussion about that, and we hope that the preliminary steps towards the widening of Europe—the association agreements presently being examined—will come forward for agreement at an early date.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his performance in Rome and I welcome his decision to ditch all his predecessor's rhetoric and prejudice against Europe. But surely he realises that soft words will not hide the necessity for hard decisions yet to come. The difference that now isolates the Government from every other country in the EC is the difference between "could" and "will". He says that we could have a


single currency; they say that we will have a single currency. Surely we cannot allow Britain to be isolated from Europe on that matter. Does he not agree that it is time that Conservative Back Benchers began to realise that the change of style on Europe over the weekend will inevitably and logically lead to a change of substance on Europe in the months to come?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about there being hard decisions to come; I made the same point a few moments ago.
It is no longer the case that it is only the United Kingdom that has considerable reservations about the plan for economic and monetary union which is before the Community. Alternative plans are being brought forward by a number of other Community countries, and quite a few robust and worthwhile criticisms were made of plans which were previously unchallenged. The United Kingdom has for a long time set out its reservations about what has become known as the Delors plan, drafted by that committee, and they relate to matters concerning this House and to the economic circumstances under which any move to a single currency would be satisfactory. Those underlying economic circumstances are an unchanging reality which we shall continually bear in mind before any moves are made.

Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend has entered into the debate about the best form of European Community for the future with great skill and he deserves to be warmly congratulated. Does he agree, on political union, that it is not a matter of going slower or faster towards the so-called goal of a collectivist, centralist, federal European union, but of ensuring that we instead move towards a Europe which is based on proper constitutional principles of a looser confederal kind, and that that is the kind of Europe that will win many friends throughout the Community? Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has made an excellent start in winning some of those friends for a Europe of the future which meets the democratic principles in which we believe?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm without equivocation that we remain opposed to federalism in the context of a federal European Government. Our concept of political union is clear: it is one of ever closer co-operation and working together between the member states of the Community while preserving their national parliaments, Governments and traditions. It is not a centralised European super-state.

Mr. Peter Shore: In the light of this vast and unappetising menu of proposals for political union and for economic and monetary union, is it not clear that what is being discussed at the intergovernmental conference is every bit as important as the treaty of accession to the treaty of Rome 17 years ago? That being so, will the Prime Minister arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary to report on each ministerial meeting of the relevant IGC that they attend? When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister, his Minister for Europe reported to the House so that it had an opportunity to contribute to the discussions as they unfolded.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they are important discussions. We shall certainly report matters of substance to the House.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all parts of the House on achieving a notable change of style as well as of future substance in the negotiations, thereby showing that we are psychologically committed, as are the other 11, without reducing our negotiating strength in future complicated discussions? It is normal that there will be objections from all sides to various elements of the plan. Will he say more about plans to bring the European Parliament into more contact with national parliaments, working together for an integrated future and a united Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. In our discussions with our European partners, we have made it perfectly clear that, just as to some extent the European Parliament has had a direct interest in legislation in this House, so we should not overlook the importance of what this House does to the European Parliament. We have identified particular areas over which it would be appropriate for the European Parliament to have extra powers. They are not extra legislative powers but extra powers of control over the Commission and over financial accountability within the Community.

Mr. Giles Radice: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's changed style on Europe is welcome but that the question remains: how far has the substance changed? Are the Government now committed in principle to a single currency and a European bank?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the position perfectly well, for we set it out clearly last June, when I first introduced our proposals for a parallel currency that could develop into a European currency. We need to see to what extent it is accepted and to what extent it works over a period. There is no point in committing ourselves to a principle until we have some experience of whether it is worth while and will work.

Mr. William Cash: Acknowledging the important contribution that my right hon. Friend made to the atmosphere at the Rome summit which contributed to the fact that we ask questions now rather than making decisions on the presidency's conclusions, does he agree that it is wrong to go ahead with the proposals for a central bank, which would pull the consent from under the feet of the British electorate and which would be economic defeatism of the first order and ensure that the people of this country no longer had control over the economic and social priorities that they have chosen in general elections?

The Prime Minister: As I said a few moments ago, we did not discuss economic and monetary union over the weekend, but the matters to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention are the substance of the intergovernmental conference that will deal with them.

Mr. William Ross: The statement mentioned food aid to Russia. Surely it is not really food aid that Russia needs but a method of distributing it once it is inside Russia. What steps can the right hon. Gentleman and the Community take to ensure that such distribution takes place?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that it is a question not only of food aid but of ensuring that any food aid that reaches Russia is properly distributed to the people who are in need in the Soviet Union. We propose to meet that by using some of the resources that will be available under the technical assistance sums that we granted over the weekend. We are determined to ensure, as far as we can, that the food reaches the people who are in need and for whom it is intended.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those among us who believe that further pooling of sovereignty will be in this country's long-term interests none the less welcome his step-by-step approach, and warmly applaud his success in finding allies among the EC Governments for the attainment of British objectives?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In many of the complex matters that will come before the Community in the next few years, the views of different member states will be complex and will often overlap with ours. I certainly believe that, wherever we can, we should build up our alliances to achieve the result that is right for this country and for Europe.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Although I welcome emergency aid to the Soviet Union and to eastern Europe, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that 20 million people are facing starvation in Africa, and that that emergency aid should not be allowed to divert attention from the catastrophes affecting the developing world or to divert funds, which they are giving in inadequate amounts to such countries?

The Prime Minister: I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially about the difficulties in the horn of Africa. It is likely that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will make a statement about that before long.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, two or three weeks ago, there was an assize in Rome, attended by individuals from national parliaments, and from the European Parliament, and that that body reached conclusions which represented the opinions of no one, but those individuals? As that body has decided to make representations to the IGC, will he treat the representations for what they really are—phoney, flawed and fallacious?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clear clue to how we should deal with any representations that come from that quarter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when the Single European Act was presented to the House—with all its far—reaching implications, its defects and surprises—it was adopted by his party? Therefore, would it not be wise for the proposals contained in the Rome communiqué and their implications for the United Kingdom to be fully investigated by the House, with all the means at its disposal? Would not a failure to do so from now onwards constitute a democratic deficit in the area of Westminster?

The Prime Minister: The House has had a number of opportunities to debate these matters. As to whether there

will be more, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because of his experience in these matters, at the time of the Single European Act there was a large menu of possibilities for it, many of which were unsatisfactory to us, and which were gradually whittled down in the negotiations on the Act. Precisely the same may occur this time.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the original proposals in the social charter have, under the influence of the Government and others, changed enormously since they were first tabled. Does my right hon. Friend believe that our partners will eventually come round to the British view that over-regulation of hours and conditions of working are the wrong way to go, and that we should be opening up the labour market?

The Prime Minister: I certainly share the view that my hon. Friend has just expressed. As I said earlier, there has been no question of a change of course in terms of our views on the social charter. I shall continue to represent that view in Europe.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that one of the most important aspects of these discussions should have been the completion of the GATT round? That is a problem here and now, unlike economic and political union, which is for some time in the far distant future. Is it not also clear that Jacques Delors, when he talked about the crisis within Community countries, was clearly missing the point—that the crisis concerns the role of the President of the Commission himself?

The Prime Minister: We certainly do need to complete the GATT round, but that clearly could not have been done at the European Council, because the negotiating partners were not there. What was agreed absolutely at the Council was the existence of two clear, unmistakable signals: first, that the European Community wanted a successful outcome to the GATT round, and, secondly, that its negotiators—Mr. Andriessen and Mr. MacSharry—were to go back and discuss the content of the GATT round with others, with the intention of reaching a satisfactory conclusion. That was felt strongly by all the Heads of Government who were present.

Sir Michael Marshall: May I return to the question of food and, I trust, other emergency aid from west to east? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the military forces of both west and east possess spare capacity in regard to transportation, medical supplies and the whole infrastructure of communications? Will he use his good offices to harness that side of our resources, as well as civil resources, to ensure that aid goes to those who really need it—as he said earlier that it should?

The Prime Minister: That last point is clearly criticial, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. We are at present examining both the priorities and the channels for the disbursement of food, and have asked the Commission to engage in a similar process. Whether that will extend beyond the civil authorities is currently unclear, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Prime Minister make clear the position relating to food aid and other support for the Soviet Union? Is it distinctly


dependent on the personal position of President Gorbachev, or will aid be given irrespective of personal positions in the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: The issues have not been particularly tied, although everyone will acknowledge that President Gorbachev has made remarkable changes in the Soviet Union over recent years. Given the difficulties he faces, and the difficulties experienced by so many in finding food in the Soviet Union, we felt that it was right for us to help, and I think that that view was universal.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that the weekend brought emotional reactions from both Jacques Delors and Woodrow Wyatt suggests that his tactics during the Rome summit must have been right? Does he agree that those tactics—which included stressing what we have in common with our European partners, rather than stressing our differences—have been confirmed as likely to build a better future in the Community? In particular, has he noted that the French are moving in his direction, in that they wish to reform the various institutions of the Community but to retain the present institutional balance? Is that not a welcome development?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is welcome. Part of the business of building the sort of Europe that we wish to see is ensuring that its institutions are both effective and efficient, and there is still a considerable amount of work to be done in that regard.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant by
observance of the principle of subsidiarity"?
Will he give us some concrete examples of the allocation of key governmental functions between national Parliaments and Community institutions? Who does he think should make the decisions on allocation?

The Prime Minister: The principle of subsidiarity is clear: things should not be done at Community level which can be better done at national level.

Sir Richard Body: In Rome, did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of explaining to the other 11 members of the European Council that the common agricultural policy cost the average British family £16 a week last year, and is likely to cost them £20 a week this year?

The Prime Minister: The detail of the common agricultural policy was not central to our agenda. There was some discussion in private, however—not in the European Council—and I think that there is a general recognition in the Community that the CAP will bear further investigation.

Mr. Ron Leighton: When he considers the establishment of a single currency, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that the exchange rate mechanism is the embryonic first stage of such a currency, and that within weeks it has done grave damage to the country? The domestic economy is crying out for a cut in interest rates, but, because the uncompetitive nature of the British economy means that the pound is now bumping along in the lower band of the ERM, such a cut cannot be made. The Chancellor is saying that his overriding priority

is to maintain an untenable exchange rate. Would a single currency lock us into that unsatisfactory position in perpetuity?

The Prime Minister: The exchange rate mechanism is not necessarily the first step to a single currency, as the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware. I reiterate what I said a little earlier—that the purpose of Government economic policy is to bring down the rate of inflation, not to replace inflation today with inflation tomorrow by a premature and unwise movement on interest rates.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Bearing in mind the heavy price that the Soviet Union is paying for holding down food prices to 1945 levels, will my right hon. Friend totally reject the advice that he has just received from the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) who constantly undermines British agriculture and Europe in general?

The Prime Minister: I hear with some interest what my hon. Friend says. This is a matter that might best be settled privately in the back room.

Mr. James Lamond: When the Prime Minister spoke of sending our negotiators back to the table at the GATT negotiations with a view to making progress, surely he cannot intend that we weaken even further our attitude towards this country's clothing and textile industry, which is already suffering from the fact that the European Community is supposed to deal with matters relating to dumping, but never gets round to doing so? The textile industry has already conceded enormous benefit to developing countries and is in a state of crisis at the moment. Surely nothing can be done on that side of the negotiations to enable further progress to be made.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the area that primarily restricted progress in the GATT talks was not the area to which he has referred; it was agriculture. A negotiating remit was available to the Commission. We have agreed that it should be fully utilised and we think that, within that, it will be possible to find an agreeable settlement with our other partners in the GATT round.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend take the President of the European Commission quietly to one side and explain to him that the British people do not react well to threats and that, if he wants to ensure our co-operation and our £6 million a day contribution towards the funds of the European Community, he had better control his irritation at the fact that my right hon. Friend is making friends and influencing people?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I am sure that his comments will be noted throughout Europe. Our principal concern in all the negotiations is to ensure that, at their conclusion, there is a sensible agreement that is satisfactory and right for this country.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in the context of political union, there is to be a debate on defence matters? How will that leave our position in NATO? Will he confirm that NATO is the bulwark of our European defence policy? How will


that debate affect our special relationship with the United States, and where will it leave the Western European Union?

The Prime Minister: There was a very satisfactory discussion on that in NATO yesterday, but there was general agreement among all the European partners about the absolute primacy and importance of the NATO Alliance. It is worth considering how the Western European Union can itself be built up as a European bulwark of the NATO Alliance.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept the many congratulations that he has received this afternoon on a remarkable triumph of personal diplomacy in Rome? His talents in that area will be a great national asset in the months and years to come. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the anti-inflationary teeth of the hard ecu proposal represent the best possible mechanism for achieving convergence of the Community economies on a low inflation rate, which is an aim that all of us in the Community must surely have in common, with the possible exception of the British Labour party?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, especially on the last point. The hard ecu proposal that we have produced would be the most anti-inflationary currency that Europe has ever seen.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: On the question of food surpluses from the EEC, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to look at last night's edition of the Glasgow Evening Times, which reported that hundreds of people queued outside an unemployment centre to get free mince, stew and butter? One unemployed man was heard to comment, "My youngest is 17 months, and this comes in handy for Christmas." If the EEC is going to distribute food, surely it should do so in a more dignified manner.

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that people in Moscow and elsewhere, who have no food and empty shops, would entirely agree.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for many people, the breakdown of the GATT negotiations was far more important than the discussions on a single currency? Does he further accept that, without fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, there is a risk of mounting recession and trade war?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the GATT talks. I share his view that we must reconsider how the common agricultural policy works. It is not the most efficient way to help farming, although in areas of this country and elsewhere help on social and other grounds will be necessary.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: In those discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy, will the Prime Minister and the Government agree with proposals reportedly being considered by the European Commission that the CAP should be phased out and replaced with a policy based on environmental protection and direct income aid for small farmers?

The Prime Minister: No such proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy have been made. The Commission has said that it is committed to bringing forward proposals and measures to accompany the Community offer in the GATT talks. Those proposals may be less radical than has been suggested in some newspaper reports that I have seen, but the key to reform of the common agricultural policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made clear a moment or so ago, remains a successful conclusion of the GATT round, and we are working to achieve that.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As one of the few specific matters of agreement on this proposal relates to the approximation of the VAT system and excise duties to complete the internal market, and as the agreement particularly said that proceedings have to be completed in the near future, will my right hon. Friend say when the House of Commons and the people of Britain will be told what is involved, because there was unanimous agreement that those proceedings would be completed in the near future?

The Prime Minister: In no sense have we agreed to approximation of VAT rates. We have expressed long-standing opposition to that on a variety of grounds, as my hon. Friend knows. Nothing that was said or done in the European Council this weekend has changed that.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Prime Minister referred to the unanimous decision to support the use of force in the Gulf. Apart from Britain and France, how many of the other 10 member states have ground forces stationed in the Gulf? Are those countries supporting the United Kingdom and France in a war in which they are not prepared to take part?

The Prime Minister: The ground forces, as the hon. Gentleman says, are predominantly British, which are substantial, as well as French forces. Several of our Community partners have naval and, in some cases, air representation there as well.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mr. Delors that the United Kingdom, which has expressed reservations about EMU at the highest possible level, has a better right than some other countries to propose a counter-draft? Does he believe that his proposal of the hard ecu is steadily gaining ground?

The Prime Minister: We certainly shall propose a counter-draft, which is in the course of preparation, and I hope that we shall be able to make it available in early January if work continues as satisfactorily as at present. We have a perfect right to put it forward, and I am pleased that others are seeking to do the same; it will add to the success of the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of the oldest nation states in the world are in western Europe and that they have signed hundreds of treaties between them in the past 10 centuries, most of which finished up in the dustbin? With the Rome treaty, which is based on the free movement of capital and labour and which has so many contradictions, we are reaching the point where decisions will have to be made. Is he aware that the British people do not want a single currency or a central bank dominated by the Germans? If he takes note


of what the British people are saying, he will refuse the accolades of Conservative Members to go further down that Common Market road. One thing is certain: political union will not mean that somebody with a name like Herr von Baron Straushauser will stand for Labour in Bolsover. That will be the end of that.

The Prime Minister: Party politics aside, I have no doubt that somebody by the name of Skinner will represent Bolsover at least until the general election. There may well be contradictions in the free market, but there is chaos in the sort of managed market that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would wish upon us.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his achievement in persuading our partners in Rome that we want to be participants and not merely observers is significant? Is it not one of the consequences that many of the smaller EC countries that would privately have agreed with a number of our positions will now be more public in making that clear? Does that not mean that the candidate for isolation will be not the United Kingdom but the President of the Commission? Those centralist, socialist ideas have the whole-hearted support only of the British Labour party.

The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that we want a liberal, open-market economy, and that is what we propose to work for. The closer we get to the difficult decisions which need to be taken on economic and monetary union, the more the difficulties of a centralised, prescriptive approach become apparent and the more the attractions of a pragmatic step-by-step approach, with experience gained on the way before making the final decisions, can clearly be seen.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Prime Minister has described his approach in the EC as considered and thoughtful, why was caution abandoned in respect of sanctions against South Africa? Why did the EC specifically rebuff Nelson Mandela's request that sanctions should continue for a while, at least until President de Klerk delivers on his promises? Has the Prime Minister no conception of the perils and dangers for the peace process in South Africa? Is he aware that constantly saying that he is rewarding de Klerk makes the process much more difficult? If that country falls into chaos, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will have a heavy responsibility to bear.

The Prime Minister: I could not disagree more. Discussions on this matter have been going on for 10 months or so. The hon. Gentleman referred to President de Klerk delivering his policies. I remind him that Mr. Mandela has been released, political parties have been unbanned, agreement with the African National Congress to phase the release of other political prisoners and the return of exiles has been achieved, abolition of the state of emergency has been achieved, the Separate Amenities Act has been repealed, the moratorium on executions and reform of the death penalty have been achieved and a series of further promises has been sought. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to put such a block on future events that we cannot move forward? That would be the outcome of following his policy.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enthusiasm for the idea that the level playing field, which the European Community is supposed to establish, should work. I very much welcomed his statement that sanctions were being considered against countries that did not honour their pledges. Would he like to spell out a little more his hopes and proposals in that sphere?

The Prime Minister: We shall certainly lay down some detailed proposals at the IGC. First, we intend that there should be much closer accountability of countries so that we can check, through the Commission, on how many European pieces of legislation they are enforcing. Secondly, we are concentrating on having a fining procedure for those countries that repeatedly accept legislation but blatantly do not implement it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not the candid answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) be that 10 nations of the Community will have no truck with committing land forces? What was said in Rome about the proposed meeting with Tariq Aziz? Why do we oppose it? If the Prime Minister is going to visit the forces—I should welcome that—should he not also call in on the Yemen to hear what its people have to say and Jordan to hear what they have to say and perhaps discuss with Felipe Gonzales and others the possibility, given the horrendous human and ecological consequences of using the military option, of swallowing his pride and paying a visit to Baghdad?

The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that that would be helpful. The Community leaders, without exception, were perfectly clear in setting out in the clearest possible terms their condemnation and abhorrence of Iraqi actions. Again without exception, they demanded Iraq's complete, immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait by 15 January. They are perfectly well aware that, if there is to be peace, it is in the hands of Saddam Hussein. It is for him to withdraw. It is he who blatantly and without any just cause invaded an adjacent country and occupied it, and has steadily been dismantling it day by day. The international community should not, could not, and will not stand by and see that happen.

Sir Jim Spicer: The Baltic republics of the Soviet Union were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a particular status should be afforded to those four republics in technical and food aid?

The Prime Minister: That matter was not discussed during the Rome summit over the past couple of days. We were primarily concerned to ensure that a substantial amount of food aid was available at the centre and that there should be proper distribution to the many people who seem to be unable to obtain food at the moment.

Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Prime Minister said, in referring to the Soviet policy on agriculture, that the advice had been given that the Soviet Union should be
more responsive to the market",
are we to assume that the Community will offer the same advice to its member states?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be certain that that is so.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In respect of the question of substance over monetary union, may I remind my right hon. Friend what the then Prime Minister said on 30 October in her initial statement which, we understood, was approved by the Cabinet? Did she not say:
And I again emphasised that we would not be prepared to have a single currency imposed upon us, nor to surrender the use of the pound sterling as our currency"?—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 870.]
Can my right hon. Friend now give a clear undertaking that he will never recommend a single currency to the House?

The Prime Minister: What we have made perfectly clear, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we will examine the proposition, lay a draft treaty to the proposition of a parallel European currency and leave it, as I would have thought that my hon. Friend would have been the first to appreciate, to the market, to individuals, to companies and to Governments to decide whether to use that currency.

Mr. John Bowis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his outstanding contribution to the success of the conference, and I welcome the decisions made on eastern and central Europe. Was my right hon. Friend able to express, on behalf of the people of this country, our concerns about the reality of democracy in some countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania? Was it also possible to make contingency arrangements for the situation that may be developing in Albania, where Europe may and should be asked to come to the Albanians' aid?

The Prime Minister: No, that last point was not discussed at Rome over the weekend. Clearly, the earlier concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned were there, but the principal matter under discussion over the weekend on Bulgaria and on Romania was the clear need for food and medical help there. We have, of course, arranged for that to the extent of 100 million ecu, but we have also emphasised the desirability of meeting that expenditure from existing financial resources.

Mr. Chris Butler: Did the Italian Prime Minister explain to my right hon. Friend why he believes that progress towards a European super-state is irreversible? If so, how did my right hon. Friend respond?

The Prime Minister: He did not, so the question on this occasion did not arise.

Mr. John Butterfill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust defence of the principle that, wherever possible, decisions should be made in national parliaments rather than in Brussels? Does he agree that the principle of subsidiarity needs further defending by being incorporated in amendments to the treaties and that any dispute on that should not be referred to an undemocratic and unelected court but should be determined by a meeting of national parliaments, as has been proposed by several European Governments and by Mr. Alain Poher of the French Senate?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that, provided that we can get a satisfactory and agreed definition of subsidiarity, we will wish to see it incorporated in the treaty.

Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement in Rome in changing the summit so that, instead of it being II to one it was 12 to one and Britain was not the one.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that we can find the United Kingdom in a position in which it takes a positive role in the development of the European Community. Of course, there will be occasions on which we hold the minority view but, provided that we are satisfied that that view is correct, we shall continue to pursue it.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if his discussions with Chancellor Kohl about closer links between the British Conservative party and the CDU are successful, the effect on Europe could be dramatic? The unification of the non-socialist majority of the European Parliament could mean that more sense came out of that Parliament and that more control was exercised by it over the arrogance of the President of the Commission.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. No sensible person would want a socialist Europe.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his ecumenical and subtle Euro-diplomacy already seems to be producing some interesting results? Has he seen today's press reports suggesting that the Dutch and French Governments are now moving away from their alleged commitment to the Delors plan for EMU? Could that be the start of a new scenario: "Fog in Channel—Delors Isolated"?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure of the weather, but it is true that some of our European partners, having examined in detail the earlier plans for European monetary union, have now begun to see some of the considerable defects in them that we observed at an earlier stage. I hope that that trend will continue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I ask the two Opposition Members now standing whether they were present for the beginning of the statement?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Not throughout.

Mr. Graham Allen: The Prime Minister referred to the GATT negotiators not totally fulfilling their remit in the collapse of the GATT talks. Will he tell the House what flexibility there is within the previous remit issued to the European GATT negotiators and whether that remit needed to be and was extended at the recent meeting of Heads of Government?

The Prime Minister: The remit was not extended in the meeting of Heads of Government. The broad remit was a 30 per cent. reduction in the level of 1986 subsidies. That was not fully utilised. Indeed, nobody was asking for a bigger reduction in the GATT talks. They were asking for a redistribution within the 30 per cent., and that is a matter upon which the negotiators have room to move.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that the majority of American troops are now being removed from Europe to the Gulf, perhaps never to return, and that the peoples of the Soviet Union and north America now look to Europe on a force for peace, security and assistance throughout the world, will my right hon. Friend and his Government give favourable consideration to the Italian proposals for a common initiative on defence, possibly including a common defence force?

The Prime Minister: I am not immediately attracted to that posture. Our main defence posture has, for a long time, been successfully within the NATO alliance, and I believe that it is in the clear interests of this country for that to remain the position in the future.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the highly successful conference in Rome, it is vital that all members of the European Community continue to apply strict economic sanctions to Iraq until Saddam Hussein gets out of Kuwait and pays for all the damage that he has done and the human suffering that he has caused?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The degree of unity on that issue across Europe, and, I am glad to say, within the House, is of immense importance in that respect.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Prime Minister reflect upon the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on South Africa? Does he understand that the fundamental reason why Nelson Mandela was put in gaol over a quarter of a century ago was that he was denied the basic democratic right to vote in the country of his birth because of the colour of his skin? Until progress is made on that fundamental issue, is it not unacceptable that there should be any concessions to the present South African Government?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know from the list that I read out some time ago, there have been

considerable movements within South Africa, which we welcome. Now the modest move has been taken of lifting the investment ban throughout the European Community. As further moves proceed in South Africa, we shall be able to make further moves towards lifting sanctions. I am sure that that is the best way to achieve the outcome that we all wish to see—a truly open and democratic society in South Africa, which moves back into the community of nations. There is no disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me over the objective. We believe that the tactics that we are pursuing and the tactics of the European Community agreed to at the weekend are the right way to ensure that progress continues. That is surely in the interests of all South Africans.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend and his team are to be congratulated on their performance in Rome and on the outcome. Were his colleagues in Rome made aware of the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom that Poland, the country over which we went to war in 1939 and on behalf of which we made such enormous sacrifices, should become as early as possible a member of a free, democratic nation-state Community of the type that he and Conservative Members would like to see emerge? Did his colleagues in Rome understand that we in this House do not take kindly to bureaucrats, whoever they are, issuing threats?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's last point will have been noted elsewhere.
I believe that I am correct in saying that Poland already has associated membership of the Community. In due course, when it is appropriate and when Poland is in an economic position to enter, we shall be pleased to see that country join the Community.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will bear in mind the six hon. Members who have not been called and ensure that I give them priority the next time that the Prime Minister answers questions.

Points of Order

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order which refers to Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Are we entitled to ask a general policy question which does not affect an individual? Are we entitled to ask whether a change of policy on the award of hereditary baronetcies has taken place?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question but if the right hon. Member will submit a question, the Table Office will certainly consider it with care. However, I draw the attention of hon. Members to "Erskine May" page 288, which says:
It has been ruled that the Prime Minister cannot be interrogated as to the advice that he may have given to the sovereign with regard to the grant of honours, or the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown or the appointment and dismissal of Privy Councillors or the dissolution of Parliament.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the Vote Office to make copies of the helpful report of the proceedings of the European Council available to all hon. Members so that we are aware of the official conclusions of conferences, which are published in Brussels and are made available from time to time? I have a copy here. Would it not be helpful and avoid doubt about what was agreed if copies were made available through the Vote Office? Will you look into that?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for Ministers, but I shall look into it.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I should just like to say one happy thing. May I wish the right hon. Member a very happy 70th birthday? Will that be a substitute for other points of order?

Dr. John Reid: On that happy note, may I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year? I am sorry to return to the point of order previously raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about Question Time, but I do so having read "Erskine May" in the interim. I ask for your guidance. Having read "Erskine May" on titles, it is my understanding that it would be legitimate to ask the Prime Minister a general question on how his expressed philosophy in one area may conflict with his actions in general in another area—the creation of hereditary titles or peerages. As we have both now read "Erskine May", would you agree with such a ruling?

Mr. Speaker: A general question to the Prime Minister is one thing, but the question asked at Prime Minister's Question Time was not a general but a specific question. That is why I ruled it out of order.

Mr. Tony Favell: May I support the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)? It is most important that the conclusions of these conferences are made available to the House. They go to the very root of the powers of the House, and it is important that we know what the

Commission's conclusions are, so that we can question them at the earliest possible moment. This affects you, Mr. Speaker, as much as everyone else.

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of that, and I certainly agree with the proposition. The matter is for those on the Front Bench. The Prime Minister is sitting there, and I am sure that he has heard what has been said.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the point of order of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), Mr. Speaker. On 9 June last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to abolish the granting of honours for political purposes to stop the practice whereby, after 20 years' service and with full pay packets, Tory Members automatically receive a knighthood. I was deeply critical of the way in which the Prime Minister of the day was using the honours system. In giving advice to the Queen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? The hon. Gentleman's ten-minute rule Bill fell.

Mr. Grocott: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it did not get on to the statute book and fell when Parliament was prorogued. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Grocott: As I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it is out of order for us in any way to criticise the advice that a Prime Minister gives to the monarch about granting honours. I was deeply critical when I proposed the introduction of my Bill. What is more, the House gave me leave to introduce it. I was supported by many hon. Members throughout the House. Although honours may technically be awarded by the Queen, we all know that advice is given by the Prime Minister. Just as it is in order to criticise Cabinet Ministers who may technically—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point at once, please? We have a busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Grocott: It is simple, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, you said that it was out of order to criticise the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the hon. Gentleman, and the whole House heard it, that it was out of order for the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) to ask a specific question about a specific honour. If the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce another ten-minute rule Bill, I suggest that he does so.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say rapidly that the presidency conclusions are in the Library of the House of Commons and are available to hon. Members? I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said about the need to ensure that every hon. Member knows about them in good time.

Mr. Speaker: I agree.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I recall that, in your earlier statement about the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) to the


Prime Minister, you said in effect that we were not allowed to bring the royal family into controversy. Did you mean the house of Windsor, the house of Thatcher, or both?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that we stand by our own arguments, and do not call in aid members of the royal family. There is a distinction between general matters raised with the Prime Minister or matters raised generally in debate, and the rules for Question Time. I repeat page 288 of "Erskine May":
It has been ruled that the Prime Minister cannot be interrogated as to the advice that he may have given to the sovereign with regard to the grant of honours".

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On this point, Mr. Speaker. We are all sorry to risk your wrath, particularly at this festive time, but as I understand it, there are five honours which the sovereign can give without advice from the Government. They are the Knights of the Garter, the Knights of the Thistle, the Order of Merit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Well, what has it to do with me?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If I may forget Christmas charity, Mr. Speaker, if you will not listen to the point, how can you rule? I make the point that the sovereign awards certain awards, including the Royal Victorian Order, without advice from Ministers. Is this House to say that "Erskine May" is set in stone and will not move on with the times in which we live?
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was surely to the effect that all other honours are given on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. Hon. Members should be able to question a Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be, about the honours that are given, except for those that are purely within the royal prerogative. If we cannot do that, "Erskine May" is not a document for us to use but bears down on the liberties of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Remembering that we have a busy day ahead, perhaps I might say to the hon. Member and others who are concerned about the matter that I must put into practice the rules as they are. If the House wants the rules changed, that can be done as a result of a suggestion being made to the Procedurer Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), of all people, would not wish me to change the rules according to my instincts or prerogative.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall that, when you were in the House in another capacity and when Harold Wilson was giving honours out here, there and everywhere, criticism was expressed by hon. Members on both sides at a time when certain people were due to be nominated on lavender notepaper, and afterwards when another list was submitted to the Queen?
This is a matter of freedom of speech. The present Prime Minister has declared that he is in favour of a classless society. That must mean the abolition of the honours list. But having declared that, the right hon. Gentleman gives Dennis Thatcher an honour that will be

collected by Mr. Thatcher's son when he has passed on. There must be something wrong if we cannot talk about that.

Mr. Speaker: Put it to the Procedure Committee.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that yesterday, at a meeting of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, an attempt was made by a majority of Members on 20 occasions to raise the question of an interest rate cut and, if necessary, a devaluation of the pound. I understand that all the requests—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Member is not seeking to raise on the Floor of the House what went on in a Select Committee. He knows the rules. That cannot be done until the Select Committee has reported.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I might put it to you in another way, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for the Chairman of a Select Committee on 20 separate occasions to rule out a request for a Division?

Mr. Speaker: What is not proper is for the hon. Member to raise on the Floor of the House what went on in a Select Committee until that Select Committee has reported.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to clarify whether it is within the ambit of the House that the rules of sub judice can be interpreted so generally that I can be refused by the Table Office permission to table early-day motions or written questions relating to the Government Actuary's Department and the responsibility of the Treasury, which knew as far back as 1986 about the problems at Levitts?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must submit her questions to the Table Office. If they are refused, she may wish to see me about them, and I shall certainly look at them.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a happy point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the hon. Member's birthday, too?

Mr. Ewing: A short while ago, you congratulated an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches on his 70th birthday. You merely looked, when doing that, in the general direction of the Bench on which I am seated. Also seated on this Bench are a number of my hon. Friends who, I am sure, are wondering, as I am, to whom you were referring. Would you care to make it clear that you were referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)?

Mr. Speaker: I was referring to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). But I would say to any right hon. or hon. Member in the House who has a birthday today: happy birthday.

BILL PRESENTED

EXPORT AND INVESTMENT GUARANTEES

Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mrs. Lynda Chalker and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to make new provision as to the functions exercisable


by the Secretary of State through the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and make provision as to the delegation of any such functions and the transfer of property, rights and liabilities attributable to the exercise of any such functions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Licensing Reform Bill

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes.
I admit at the outset that the title of my Bill is more ambitious than the content of the measure, but it is a sensible, limited measure which is sponsored by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that it will be given a Second reading.
There is little doubt that the licensing system in Britain needs reform. The Small Independent Brewers Association tells me that the public house structure comes from the Beer House Act 1830. The Government recognised the need for liberalisation in 1988 as a result of the deliberations of the Erroll committee. Indeed, the Birmingham licensing bench, the biggest in the country, said in 1988:
The time has come for Parliament to instigate a detailed study of the licensing laws with a view to their wholesale reform.
In July of this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for these matters, said that the Government recognised that there was a good case for the wholesale reform and updating of the liquor licensing system.
My Bill is more modest that that. It argues for changes to be made in the licensing system which would make it more objective, fair and transparent and more responsive to the needs of the community and the consumer. I emphasise that I have no intention of making relaxations in the existing licensing system. Indeed, I welcome Government measures against irresponsible drinking. In particular, I welcomed their decision in 1988 to give justices more powers to revoke licences with only 26 days' notice and to make the prosecution of under-age drinkers much easier. Even so, the existing system can be restrictive and oppressive in a number of ways.
My remarks may be taken in a geographical, or be thought to have a west midlands, perspective, in that I was a member of the licensing planning committee there for two years some years ago. The Birmingham Post has been conducting a vigorous campaign against what CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—has called
the notoriously restrictive Birmingham licensing bench.
Even the editor of The Licensing Review has written:
there is great concern about certain of the policies undertaken by Birmingham and the difficulty in challenging them.
The measures in my Bill will be applicable to and will benefit England and Wales generally. Basically, the Bill contains four measures. The first is to give every applicant who has a licence application rejected the right to know the reasons for the rejection. It seems wrong that, when someone has made what might have been an expensive application and who may have tied up much capital in doing so, he should have no right to be given reasons if his application is rejected. The Home Office says that many benches are prepared to advise applicants of the reasons for rejection, but that is only advice, and my magistrates bench in north Worcestershire tells me:
It is not usual, or a requirement, that justices should give explanations or reasons for their decisions.


That must be wrong. They should be required to do so, as is the case in Scotland.
The second measure would put a time limit on the length of time a person can chair licensing magistrates. I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between experience and a fresh eye and objectivity. Some cities, such as Cardiff and Manchester, have fixed terms. Others do not; for example, in Birmingham, one gentleman was chairman of the licensing magistrates for 22 years. That is not to comment on his integrity, but I suggest that there is a case for limiting the term to five years only.
The third measure would set in motion a maximum period for the consideration of applications that are properly made. Before 1988, that was more difficult, because the transfer sessions met only a few times. There is no such limit now, and although most licensing benches comply with reasonable limits on time, there is a minority which, irrespective of the agreement of the police and the fire and planning authorities, use their powers unnecessarily to delay applications.
For example, in Birmingham recently, there was a £2·2 million scheme for which it took 15 months to obtain even a decision from the licensing magistrates, despite the fact that planning permission had been given by the Labour-controlled council. Eventually, the applicants withdrew in disgust.
The most important measure is to remove from licensing magistrates the criterion of the need to justify a refusal. The criterion of economic need gives rise to inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions, and tends to stifle competition, create local monopolies and reduce consumers' choice without meaningfully protecting the public. Under the Licensing Act 1964, Justices in England and Wales have a wide remit as long as they act, in Lord Widgery's words, "honestly, fairly and conscientiously". It is increasingly recognised that refusals on the ground of need have undesirable consequences.
First, the decisions become prone to inconsistency and become more arbitrary. It is wrong that licensing magistrates, who may not have done market research or put down the capital that applicants did when they entered their applications, should try to second-guess the market, despite the fact that the application would pass on planning grounds, in terms of police objections, the licensee's responsibility and fire objections. It is wrong if, despite those grounds, the application is turned down because it is said that there is no public need for the premises. In its pamphlet "Licensing Law in the 80's", the Justices' Clerks Society said:
The licensing system, as a result, is often unfair, and expensive to applicants.
Secondly, economic need stifles competition. It is no coincidence that the Justices' Clerks Society said that most

objections to licences come from the larger brewers which like to protect their own competitive position. It is no wonder that they control 57 per cent. of off-licences in the United Kingdom. The Small Independent Brewers Association wrote to me recently in support of my measure, saying:
Our members wish to compete on equal terms with companies who contrive to stifle competition by offering heavy discounts or low-interest loans when trading out of a protected market which our members cannot penetrate.
CAMRA, which also supports my measure, said:
CAMRA is convinced that the licensing system acts as a barrier to entry and can reinforce local monopolies in the ownership of pubs.
Obviously, those local monopolies are not in the interest of the consumer or our constituents. The Government have recognised that. Lord Young recognised two years ago that the licensing system should not fortify local monopolies, but the Government have yet to act. I hope that my measure will be a further prod to get them moving in that direction.
The criterion of economic need reduces consumer choice. Surely it is wrong that my constituents can satisfy the licensing magistrates, the local planning committee, the police and fire authorities of the need for an off-licence and have it turned down. It is wrong that the Birmingham licensing magistrates should turn down a £750,000 application which has the support of the Labour-controlled city council, the police, fire and tourist authorities and the architects, and say that they refuse it because
existing facilities in the area are adequate for the requirements of the public.
That is paternalistic and arrogant and denies consumers choice and variety. Therefore, the ground of economic need should be removed from the criteria available to licensing magistrates when considering such decisions.
The measure is modest and sensible. It has support from both sides of the House, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Simon Burns.
Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Orders of the Day — Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

[Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Defence Committee, of Session 1989–90, on the Progress of the Trident Programme (HC 237), and the Government's Reply thereto contained in the Committee's Seventh Special Report (HC 661).]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement in the House on 5 December 1989 in which he outlined the Government's proposals for the future organisation of the atomic weapons establishment. Those proposals arise from a full review carried out in 1989, which took into account the points raised by the Select Committee in its fifth report on the Trident programme in 1988–89.
The report of the Select Committee on Defence made a number of points about contractorisation, which the Government have largely accepted. The Committee has not recommended against contractorisation, but said that it should not be rushed. We agree with that and do not plan to move from the present interim arrangements before late 1992.
My right hon. Friend announced that, as an interim step, a management contractor would be appointed. An invitation to tender for the contract was issued to eight major defence companies on 6 April and three bids were subsequently received from British Aerospace, led by Royal Ordnance; Hunting-BRAE; and a joint bid from Rolls-Royce and Babcock International. After examination of the tenders, the Hunting-BRAE bid was selected as the one that offered the best prospects of improved management and efficiency, together with value for money and safe operation of the establishment.
Hunting-BRAE has appointed a new chief executive and 19 other managers from the three companies that make up Hunting-BRAE. The staff of the establishment will retain their civil service status for the duration of the contract and the new managers are seconded as civil servants.
The groundwork is now being prepared for the reorganisation of the establishment's management structure. The contract provides for task forces to carry out studies in three spheres: to look at productivity, pay and conditions; cover management information systems; and deal with long-term manufacturing strategy.
A consultative document, setting out details for the contractorisation proposals was issued to the atomic weapons establishment trade unions on 5 December to coincide with my right hon. Friend's statement. The trade unions commented on that document and my Department issued a second consultative document on 27 July responding to their comments. The trade unions have proposed that, instead of being operated by a contractor, the establishment should become a "next steps" executive agency or a defence support agency.
"Next steps" agency arrangements or defence support agencies have considerable attractions for those establishments or organisations that should appropriately remain in the civil service. But where it is appropriate and feasible to introduce full contractorisation, that option is preferred.
Contractorisation will address the establishment's difficulties in two ways. First, the contractor will have the greatest possible freedom to offer the terms and conditions needed to attract and retain the work force he requires. Contractorisation will enable the establishment to gain the additional project and production management expertise on the scale required, together with access to the corporate support of a major industrial company or consortium. Those benefits cannot be obtained to the same extent from alternative arrangements.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark: I always give way, even to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I gave way five times last time I was at the Dispatch Box. In the end, we came to an understanding that I could no longer give way. As I judge the mood of the House, it is that we should debate the subject back and forth across the Floor in the short time remaining to us. Although I shall now, as I always do, give way to the hon. Gentleman, I do not propose to give way very generously.

Mr. Dalyell: Given the experience of the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill 1990, are we guaranteed that the views of the trade unions will be listened to more seriously than happened in respect of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers? On that occasion, relationships became unnecessarily difficult and even bitter. Is there good will in discussions with the trade unions? May we have that assurance from the Minister?

Mr. Clark: No, the hon. Gentleman may not. I do not doubt that the Committee stage of this Bill will be extremely constructive and fruitful, and that it will possibly be a prolonged experience. However, the only views to which I and my hon. Friend propose to listen are those of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Frank Haynes: That is shocking. We will deal with the Minister upstairs in Committee.

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the arrangements, understandings and conventions of the House. It is for individual right hon. and hon. Members, who are elected to this place, to articulate the views of their constituents, and of their sponsors, in the case of Labour Members. I cannot give an undertaking that the Committee will specifically listen to the views of trade unionists. It will listen to members of the Committee and to other right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question was whether Ministers would listen to the views of trade unionists—although not necessarily only in Committee. I asked my question in good faith, and I am appalled by the Minister's answer.

Mr. Clark: In every other field, such a combination of functions in one entity would be undertaken in industry


and not in government. The fact that the business is nuclear means that safeguards are required, but not that the personnel must be civil servants.
My Department remains committed to consultation with the trade unions on all detailed aspects of contractorisation. Further consultative documents will be produced in due course dealing with specific issues such as pensions. We are always ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues that may be of concern to their members. I repeat that for the benefit of any Labour Member who was not listening. That is a totally different matter from representations made in Committee upstairs, as the hon. Member for Ashfield well knows.
My Department will not compromise on safety. The establishment has an excellent safety record. The current safety organisation at the establishment will remain in existence after vesting day, and the highest standards will continue to apply. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to he heavily involved in safety issues at the establishment under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as it does now.
As to the provisions of the Bill, clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to designate activities and premises at AWE. The provisions in the rest of the Bill will apply when arrangements are made for those designated activities to be carried out under contract by a company.
Clause 2 ensures that the transfer of AWE activities—and with them its staff—to the contractor will be governed by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE 81—which protect the interests of staff by preserving conditions of service at the time of transfer. TUPE 81 does not preserve pension arrangements, although it does make it clear that there should not be a detrimental change in working conditions, including pensions, as a result of the transfer. My Department will therefore introduce a new, private sector pension scheme at AWE, which will mirror the provisions of the principal civil service pension scheme and UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme as closely as possible. The new scheme will provide benefits that are at least as good as under existing schemes.
A new redundancy payments scheme will also be set up that will, when taken together with pension scheme benefits, provide redundancy payments of an equivalent value to those payable under the PCSPS. I must stress, however, that we do not expect redundancies among AWE's work force as a result of the introduction of contractor operation.
Clause 2 also ensures that the establishment's staff will not be treated as having been made redundant when they cease to be civil servants and become employees of the contractor, with the same jobs and the same conditions of service.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Including pensions?

Mr. Clark: I have just mentioned those.
In practice, AWE staff will be transferred not directly to the contractor but to a company formed by the Secretary of State to act as the employer of all establishment staff. That employing company will then be acquired by the company that wins the competition for the full contractor operation of AWE.
Clause 3, together with the schedule, preserves AWE's current position with respect to certain items of legislation.

After vesting day, establishment land, facilities and other assets will remain the property of the Crown, but will be operated by the contractor. It will be necessary for certain privileges related to Crown status to remain in force., for security and, in some cases, for practical reasons.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister say something about the interface between the AWE under contractorisation and the warhead operation at Coalport and Faslane? I understand that that operation is currently totally interfaced by the MOD, but that under contractorisation, there will be a cut-off. What will be the interface between private enterprise contractorisation and the AWE in relation to the MOD's warheads operation at Coalport and Faslane?

Mr. Clark: I recognise the importance of that aspect, but it is tangential to the measure now before the House, so it is not one on which I shall comment now. However, if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he can expand on that point later, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement would certainly respond. Also, I have no doubt that the Committee will consider that matter as one of prime importance during its deliberations Upstairs.
In cases where there is room for legal doubt whether a necessary Crown privilege would continue to apply after contractorisation, provision has been made in the schedule to ensure that it will. That does not necessarily mean that, in each case, the privilege would be lost if no provision were made. The intention is to put the issue beyond doubt. We will continue to examine AWE's position in relation to the Acts mentioned in the schedule before and during Committee stage.
The main reason for the provisions that have been made in the schedule is security. It is essential that access to classified nuclear weapon information, and to the highly sensitive AWE sites themselves, is restricted to specially cleared personnel. The majority of the provisions in the schedule are intended to prevent local authorities and other non-Crown bodies from acquiring rights of access to establishment sites and to nuclear weapon information.
There are also practical reasons involved. For instance, so that my Department will have the flexibility to change the contractor in the future, it will be necessary to prevent a contractor from acquiring security of tenure at establishment sites. Accordingly, there is provision for AWE to be exempt from the section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that deals with security of tenure for business tenants.
Clause 3 also gives the Secretary of State power to repeal or amend any of the provisions of the schedule. Clause 4 ensures that the Ministry of Defence police will continue to fulfil its existing roles with respect to the establishment. They include not only its vital guarding role at the sites, but also criminal investigation. My Department will continue to be responsible for setting security standards, and for the vetting of AWE staff, who will have to meet the same stringent security requirements that apply now.
Clause 5 provides for certain expenses that might arise in connection with the employing company to be paid for out of money provided by the House.
As well as creating a framework within which contractor operation can be introduced, the Bill provides safeguards both for the United Kingdom's defence


interests, by helping to protect national security considerations, and for AWE staff, by ensuring that they will keep their existing jobs without detriment to their conditions of service when the contractor is introduced. Those, together with other rigorous safeguards that will be imposed through the provisions of the contract, and by the close and continuous scrutiny of the establishment by my Department through the compliance office, will ensure that the considerable benefits of contractor operation will be achieved without detriment to safety, security, or the establishment's world-class reputation as a research establishment. I commend the Bill to this House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: When the Secretary of State announced his intention to introduce the Bill 12 months ago, many of us expressed grave reservations about it. Like most people who follow the work of the atomic weapons establishment, I was aware of the difficulties facing it. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Aldermaston and Burghfield and I spoke to people at both plants.
There is little disagreement that the problem was pay. The same conclusion was reached by the National Audit Office in 1987, when it said:
The MOD identified the basic problem as being uncompetitive Civil Service pay.
The Select Committee on Defence noted that, at Aldermaston and Burghfield, pay for skilled workers is£148 while in the rest of the travel-to-work area the average wage is of the order of £209. That has resulted in the problem of staff shortages in the AWE doubling from 268 in March 1988 to 552 in March this year.
As I understand it, the Bill's purpose is to address the challenge to management arising not only from staff shortages but, since there is to be an increase in the scale of manufacturing, from the weakness in production manufacturing. It also seeks to address the problem of the undue distraction of research scientists from their research work.
Those aspects merely serve to reinforce my original point about the problems of pay and staff shortages in an area where one has to concede that the economy is overheated. If the AWE were to be relocated, the first choice would not be the Thames valley. I am not sure that many other communities would be prepared to have it, but I recognise that some of the past concerns about safety have been unfounded, because its record has been good. Whether that would be the case in future is open to question.
It would be wrong to suggest that the Ministry of Defence has done nothing about pay. It must be given credit for its attempts to introduce special pay arrangements. However, they have often created more problems than they have resolved. For example, when pay rises were given to one group in span 8, people in the allegedly higher group 7 found that they were being paid less and asked to be downgraded. Because of the narrowness of the Treasury instruction, money was made available only to a particular section of work force at any one time and a comprehensive review of pay and conditions was never possible. In a number of instances,

the Treasury created problems by intervening. There is no one here to defend the Treasury, but it defends itself well enough by other means.
There are cases within the United Kingdom public sector where unions have been able to negotiate new and more flexible arrangements as, for example, in the case of the highly successful deal for the railway inspectorate, as outlined in the evidence to the Select Committee.
The resolution of such difficulties need not require the kind of Bill that is being proposed today. The model of the Defence Research Agency could be taken. Staff could be brought in from outside the civil service, new management structures could be adopted, more flexible pay scales created and the current reallocation of work between the various establishments could continue.
The present AWE structure is being retained and the various plants are not being split up, as happened with the contractorisation of the dockyards. How the management structures will operate may be debated in Committee. I remember sitting through the Committee proceedings of the Dockyard Services Bill 1986 and being told that the attraction was stand-alone management in each place. I realise that the functions are different and I shall return to that point. Even without the contractorised arrangement, there could be subcontracting between sites and that would assist greatly.
But the basic point that the Government do not appreciate is that the contractorisation of the AWE requires a privatisation of the labour force. It will be taken out of the civil service and become the asset of the employing company. The workers will cease to be civil servants and will not be guaranteed many of the employment rights that they presently enjoy. The Minister said that a number of things would be just about the same, that he hopes that things will be all right, but that no guarantees can be given.

Mr. Alan Clark: I do not anticipate any redundancies.

Mr. O'Neill: We shall wait and see about that. The experiences of other contractorisations have been mixed. Where new management teams have come in with the purpose of, as much as anything else, finding new work, they have been reasonably successful. But if the labour shortages are to be overcome, more people will have to be employed in the short term, with the higher wages needed to attract them, being funded, I imagine, by the higher productivity in the early stages, and that in turn will result in redundancies in the future.
I wrote that passage before the Minister spoke and I read it in its entirety because I recognise that the Minister said that no redundancies are anticipated. But will he confirm that no redundancies will be anticipated throughout the five years of the contract?

Mr. Alan Clark: I stand exactly by my words. No redundancies are anticipated. One of the advantages that will accrue from the Bill is a greater flexibility in terms and conditions and pay which will allow more effective recruitment. No one can predict what will happen in five years' time. It would be irresponsible to do so.

Mr. O'Neill: That is fine. We have now got it. At least at the beginning of the five-year period no redundancies are anticipated, but towards the end they are a possibility.

Mr. Alan Clark: No, not at all.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister will give no undertakings, and that is what I said earlier. That is the kind of problem we have had. I recognise that people do not have jobs for life, but under the system that the Minister envisages, money will be made available by the contractors, as is often the case in such contracts, in the early stages when there is no profit, and only as the five-year period goes on will profits begin to accrue.
The situation is viewed over the five years. In this instance, we shall see additional recruitment and an enhancement of conditions, and we shall then have to get increased productivity. Thereafter, as I said earlier and as the Minister has now conceded, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no redundancies towards the end of the five-year period. That is the only way in which I can see this measure washing its face financially. We will doubtless come back to that in Committee.
Individuals may well he surplus to requirements or not suited to the new set-up, and the difficulty about removing them from the civil service is that they will no longer have access to the other career openings that the civil service offers. They would have to leave the AWE and apply afresh to the civil service, which is a complicated business and which need not be imposed on the work force in the way that I have described.
I am concerned that the Minister has glided over the honouring of existing agreements. He has said that conditions and the private pension scheme will be better. We shall have to look at that again to see what guarantees in writing can be given to the work force that that will be so. If it proves correct, I shall be happy to concede the point on Third Reading; but, as we say in Scotland, I hae me doots.
In Committee we shall examine the issues surrounding the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE 81—but that is a detailed matter and we do not have time to go into it now.
The British experience of Government-owned, contractor-operated—GOCO—facilities is limited. Neither Rosyth nor Devonport has a great record on job security. In Devonport the work force has fallen from 14,000 to 5,000. The role of the contractors has been to shed labour. There have been attendant problems in Devonport, as the Minister knows, because of the nature of the site, the rent for which is felt to be excessive, and reductions in the core programme and the difficulties of finding alternative work. In different circumstances, Rosyth has probably done better; it has improved industrial relations and has a good record of winning additional work, but there are still problems with the size of the core programme and with MOD business generally.
The jury is still out on British GOCOs. That is certainly not so in the United States where the problem has been one of safety. There have been faults due to cost-cutting and carelessness. I know that the record of the AWE is generally good, not least since the recommendations of the Pochen report were implemented. We have not had problems on the scale of those in the United States, where GOCOs will require between £66 billion and £100 billion to be spent on them in the next 25 years. The name Rocky Flats has become synonymous with environmental disaster. The House, the communities around the establishments and the whole country will require much more convincing than we had from the Minister this evening about the duties of the compliance officers.

Mr. Alan Clark: Chernobyl was not a GOCO.

Mr. O'Neill: It was not; it was operating under different circumstances. But it is legitimate to compare and contrast the United States and Britain, no matter how unpleasant the Minister may find such comparisons.
The Opposition believe that the role of the compliance officer is somewhat dubious—not in the sense that we are hostile to him, because we wish him well, but there are other agencies and other ways of looking at the problem. We shall also look at this in detail in Committee. We are not convinced that nuclear safety and profitability are always compatible. We do not envisage that the financial arrangements will be generous enough to ensure that contractors can meet all their responsibilities and still find money at the end to make a sizeable profit.
The Labour party recognises that AWEs will exist for a long time to come. We want them to be reorganised along the lines of the Defence Research Agency. We are committed to continuing with the Trident programme, and we recognise that AWE will have to accommodate future nuclear disarmament, the dismantling of warheads, and the creation of new inspection and verification procedures. These establishments are unique and are responsible as much for the preparation for peace as for the preparation for war. Understandably, they work in conditions of secrecy.
The trust that the workers, people who live locally and the nation place in these establishments rests on the knowledge that the director and staff are answerable to the Secretary of State and this House. Labour believes that that clear line of accountability is paramount. We believe that there is a way of resolving the management and production problems of the establishment, and that can be achieved—

Mr. Douglas: Given the hon. Gentleman's responsibilities, it would be helpful if he would clarify the position of a future Labour Government. Would they be in a position to cancel the contract or to renegotiate it and bring everything back into the public domain?

Mr. O'Neill: We shall have to wait and see what happens. We are in the run-up to a general election, and I believe that this contract will never see the light of day. We shall win the general election, and the contract will not proceed. Vesting day is towards the end of this Parliament, and it is likely that the Government will have been defeated by then—not that the hon. Gentleman will have anything other than an academic interest in the House by that stage.
The Opposition believe that establishing an agency capable of working out new pay deals free from Treasury interference and capable of securing higher productivity through having a full complement of staff and keeping that staff in the civil service, can meet the obligations of the House to the people who work in the industry. We can assure the people who live around it that their environment, health and safety will be maintained, and we believe that the security of the nation can be retained. All that can be secured by voting against this unnecessary Bill.

Mr. Michael Mates: My goodness me: until the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoilt it all by saying that the Opposition would vote against this sensible measure, I was struck by how far


the Labour party has come—in favour of Trident and sensible nuclear deterrence, for instance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who spoke with common sense, will still be alive after all his Back Benchers who did not hear his speech have read what he said.
The ninth report of the Defence Select Committee of last Session and the Government's reply to it are mentioned on the Order Paper as relevant to this debate. It was the latest of our annual examinations of the progress of the Trident programme. We have visited Aldermaston more than once, most recently in March 1989, and this year we took evidence from the trade unions and AWE here in Westminster.
Part V of the latest report deals with the Government's proposals for the contractorisation of AWE. Over the past 10 years, we have had cause repeatedly to express concern about the situation at AWE, and particularly about the implications of manpower shortages there for the Trident programme. This year we reported:
the manpower difficulties … have worsened. Unless the remedial measures proposed prove effective, there is now a significant risk that some elements of the warhead programme may fail to meet their scheduled delivery dates.
It is against this background that the Government have decided to introduce this Bill, and we shall do all we can to give it a fair wind.
Our report mentions a number of potential anxieties about the contractorisation proposals, many of them expressed most strongly in evidence given us by AWE trade unions, which described the reaction of their members to the proposals as one of dismay. Principal among these anxieties is safety. It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement say that that was paramount among his concerns. The Ministry has assured us that AWE's high safety standards will be maintained after contractorisation, but we were a little worried that, in practice, a contractor might be tempted to cut corners.
As we pointed out in paragraph 68 of the report:
There is clearly some potential contradiction between the notion that new management is required to change the `culture' of AWE, and the argument that safety standards will be inviolate because the staff of AWE will take with them their existing culture.
Somewhere between the two we must make certain that everyone understands that the old excellent standards must be maintained while the new approach to management, productivity and work changes in accordance with the Government's wishes.
We have also recently produced a report on MOD's record of radiological protection of service and civilian personnel. In our 12th report of last Session, published in November, we had occasion to examine AWE again. We welcomed the recent improvement in recruitment of health physicists to make up for staff shortages in health physics posts in AWE's safety division, and we recommended that a duty to keep health physics staffing up to strength be included in the AWE management contract. I hope that the Minister can assure me that it will be so included.
In general terms, we welcome the recent fall in exposure levels of AWE staff—we go into that in detail in the report, and I shall not repeat it now.
One acid test of whether the contractorisation of AWE is a result of this Bill has improved health and safety environment at AWE will be shown by the extent to which

recent trends towards ever lower individual and total exposure levels can be maintained. I am hopeful about that, having seen at first hand the progress made at Rosyth in this respect, and we are told that the commercial operators in the dockyards at Devonport have managed to do the same.
We voiced concern in our report that the compliance office might not have enough staff with the relevant expertise to conduct adequately its monitoring and auditing role. I welcome the assurance in paragraph 14 of the Government's reply that the compliance office will be fully independent and properly resourced. I hope that the Minister will be able to flesh out that assurance with specific facts and figures. In that regard, clause 5 of the Bill is noteworthy, because it gives the Secretary of State funds to meet expenses incurred
in assuming responsibility for any liabilities".
That seems to suggest that the management contractor at AWE will not himself be liable in respect of nuclear safety. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify that position in his winding-up speech.
Similarly paragraph 9 of the schedule gives exemption to the contractor from certain sections of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain what is involved and why he thinks that exemption is necessary.
Our report concluded with these words:
It is essential that the move to contractorisation is not rushed and that the details are very fully worked out before the contract is awarded.
Progress in bringing forward the Bill has been swift, and we can assume that its implementation will be equally swift. The Committee and the House would welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that, in its speed, the Ministry is not neglecting the finer points—the small print—of the contractual terms, because it is upon them that the success of the Government's plans will turn.
I and my colleagues on the Committee welcome the Bill. However, we shall watch for the points that I have raised, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help us by answering some of them.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In spite of, or perhaps because of, the typically exiguous remarks by the Minister, I regret that I retain a deep-seated unease about the principle that lies behind the Bill.
On Second Reading, we are concerned more with principle and rather less with detail. The principle that we ought to bear in mind, above all others, is the legitimate protection of the public interest. We cannot have a debate of this kind without reminding ourselves that nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and that the responsibility for their deployment and potential use is probably the most awesome of all ministerial responsibilities.
I am unrepentantly of the view that ministerial responsibility for the development and manufacture of such weapons ought to be retained, to the extent that the atomic weapons establishment should remain in the public domain, and that those who are most directly concerned should remain part of the civil service. I cannot flinch from the conclusion that contractorisation reflects something of a dilution in ministerial responsibility.
If there have been staff shortages and weaknesses in management—the Select Committee on Defence has


certainly identified these, and they seem to have been almost a matter of omission—is it really the case that such defects cannot be cured without contractorisation? I do not believe that the case made to support that proposition this afternoon was of the compelling nature that it ought to be to justify the substantial alteration which the Bill proposes.
I remain of the view that overcoming those defects was, and is, a question of will and resources. If sufficient will and sufficient resource had been made available, there would be no justification for embarking upon the course of action required by the Bill.
Contractorisation, whether on an interim or a full basis, seems to be an acknowledgement of failure, and we should not allow this occasion to pass without drawing that to the attention of the public. It seems inevitable that, while research and development will be matters of contract, safety issues will continue to be controversial. We may find ourselves in a curious situation. If there is a failure to meet the standards of safety set down by the compliance officer, the Government may find that they have to go to the civil court to ensure that the standard of safety specified in the contract is met. Alternatively, if the Government withhold stage payments in the contract, on the grounds that standards of safety are not being met, they may find that they are the subject of civil litigation.
In my submission, it is a curious notion that something as fundamental and important as development of and research into nuclear weapons could be the subject of civil litigation. At a time of international tension, that could hardly inspire confidence in the capacity of the Government of the day, whatever their colour, to deal with the interests of the people.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the possibility of civil litigation being used to impose health and safety requirements. As I understand it, the whole purpose of the exemptions in the schedule is to put the company outside the bounds of civil litigation. The company will be able to invoke Crown immunity because it will get that from the schedules. The company will be exempt from 13 Acts of Parliament, ranging from the Explosives Act 1875 through to more recent Acts.

Mr. Campbell: There may well be exemptions in the schedule of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but if there is a dispute between the Government and the contractor as to whether or not the contractor is fulfilling his contractual obligations with regard to meeting safety standards, the only way that it can be enforced will be to sue on the contract. That seems to be a curious position in which to find ourselves.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The compliance office, which will be very strong, will have the right to cancel a contract if safety regulations are not met. The exemptions in the schedule will preserve the situation as it is at present. The establishments are seeking no greater indemnity than they have at the moment.

Mr. Campbell: While I accept the Minister's second point, as it seems to reflect accurately the terms of the Bill, we should still direct our attention to the first. Let us suppose that the compliance officer says, "You have failed to meet the necessary standards of safety. This contract is

cancelled." Can one imagine that the contractor will walk quietly away and say, "Tough luck. That was one that didn't quite work out?" When we consider the sums of money involved, it is inevitable that the contactor will seek recourse to law in such circumstances. Therefore, we would find ourselves disputing issues of this nature in the High Court of Justice in the Strand. That is why it seems to me that, in the public interest, this matter should stay firmly and irreconcilably in the public domain.
I think that I am correct in saying that there is no statutory reference to the compliance officer within the terms of the Bill. What will be his authority? What powers will he have? What sanctions will he be able to exercise, other than those provided by the terms of the contract that the contractor enters into?
Let us suppose that there were a breach of safety. If the compliance officer has the right to say, "Meet the necessary standard," but the contractor declines to do so, what will the compliance officer do then? Will he cancel the contract? If we were three years into a five-year contract, at a time of international tension, is it conceivable that the Government would be party to the cancellation of a contract for the research, development and production of weapons which are of such significance—whether one is in favour of them or against? Once the Government were committed to any one contractor it seems to me that the contractor would be in a position of extraordinary strength and influence. The Government would essentially be at the mercy of the contractor.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who opened the debate on behalf of the Labour party, is no longer in the Chamber. The truth of the matter is that, if contractorisation takes place, no Government, whatever their colour, are likely to reverse it. The decision on the Bill which will be taken by the House will stand for a very long time, because the disruption which would necessarily be caused by moving the atomic weapons research establishment back into the civil service would be so great that no Government could properly contemplate it.
I have no particular allegiance to the trade unions that have been party to the discussions that preceded the Bill; I am bound to say, however, that all the evidence suggests that their responses displayed considerable maturity and responsibility. It is a pity that their proposals for a "next steps" or defence support agency have found so little favour with the Government. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that when he winds up.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to the United States experience. In my view, the United States experience of Government-owned, contractor-operated atomic weapons activities hardly inspires confidence, and the Rocky Flats establishment does not strike me as a model that we should seek to emulate—any more than the standards of management at Chernobyl would have satisfied the civilian nuclear energy industry in this country.
Government-owned, contractor-operated activities may well suit the environment of the United States. We know that that environment allows for much more scrutiny. The armed services committees of both Houses of Congress have far greater powers than the Select Committee on Defence in the House of Commons, and members of those Houses have much more access to information than British Members of Parliament. We have only to consult the index of, for instance, Jane's Defence Weekly to see—week in, week out—what contracts have


been placed in the United States, and how much is involved. When contracts are placed by our Ministry of Defence, we are not entitled to be given the details.
I have no doubt that ministerial responsibility for nuclear weapons, from their development through every conceivable stage, should be unequivocal and unbending. I fear that, if the element of contract is introduced, Ministers' natural response to any criticisms made in the House will be, "It is not us; it is the contractors." To some extent, the responsibility will be sloughed off. That is not in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, which is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will forgive me if I do not take up the points that he has just made. This is a short debate, and I know that many of my hon. Friends want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Committee stage will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to explore and challenge his remarks.
I welcome the chance to speak this evening, simply because I have considerable constituency interests. Aldermaston is only a few hundred yards—and Burghfield only a few miles—outside the Basingstoke constituency. Many hundreds of my constituents work at those establishments: during the past 12 months or so I have received many representations about the Government's proposals, and have listened with the greatest care to every point put to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) is not attending the debate: he is recovering from an operation, and I know that the House will wish him well. I was in touch with him recently, however, and I have discovered that his views coincide with mine to a significant degree. I believe that his constituents, if they read the report of the debate, will wish to know that.
Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, I have no quarrel with contractorisation in principle—provided that the worst instances of the United States experience can be avoided, and provided that my constituents will not suffer as a result of its implementation. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurances in regard to points with which we are both familiar from the voluminous correspondence that has passed between us, as well as correspondence from his predecessor.
My first point relates to safety and security. I accept that the two consultative documents provided considerable reassurances. Both stressed the role of the compliance office, which is clearly a debatable matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, described—and knows far better than I—the further reassurances given in the Committee's ninth report, Session 1989–90, page 29, question 226. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will demonstrate to my constituents that their fears about safety and security under contractorisation are misplaced.
My second point concerns pensions. I am encouraged by assurances given to me by my hon. Friend the Minister in correspondence—for instance, that
new pension arrangements … will match those of the PCSPS as closely as possible
and that
the accrued pension rights in the PCSPS of staff transferred will not be lost".
The ball is in my hon. Friend's court, however: he must give my constituents further assurances that they need not worry on this score.
My third point concerns redundancy. My hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to me on 8 June:
On the question of redundancy rights, I can give a categorical assurance that the length of service before contractorisation will count fully towards the calculation of redundancy benefit".
I hope that my hon. Friend will stand by that.
I am prepared to accept that contractorisation may be the way forward for the AWE, but I cannot accept it if it fails to safeguard the interests of my constituents. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury would wish me to make that point on his behalf, too.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Like the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I have a constituency interest in the atomic weapons establishment—in my case, a Cardiff interest. The AWE is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones)—who has been seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but several hundred of my constituents work at AWE Llanishen, which the Minister visited only last week. Perhaps he will say a word about his visit when he winds up the debate.
What worries the Opposition is that the Government's approach is based entirely on one of those "quickie" principles: "If it moves, privatise it; if it does not, privatise it until it does." The Government have not devoted sufficient thought to what constitutes the real problems, and what is the most apposite solution—as distinct from the one that comes immediately to mind.
We are also worried about the hypocrisy of a Government who attempt to gain the alleged advantages of private-sector management of production and research facilities on the four sites involved, on grounds of flexibility, while at the same time trying to preserve all the Crown immunities that go with being in the public sector. It cannot be right for the House to be presented with a Bill that puts in private management but retains the part that is most convenient to the Government—the absence of any threat of independent challenge by regulatory authorities in the event of a breach, or alleged breach, of health and safety or environmental legislation by which other private firms must abide.
Let me take another example from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, and even closer to mine; just across the river, in fact. Amersham International also deals with hazardous toxic substances—in this instance, radioactive—and it moved from the public to the private sector. It has to abide by all the health and safety and environmental legislation. It is open to inspection by the National Rivers Authority or the environmental health department of Cardiff city council in respect of some of its emissions, and by the inspectorate of pollution in respect of air emissions.
None of that will apply to the atomic weapons establishment at Llanishen. It will all be dealt with by the compliance officer under a completely untested, cosy in-house arrangement. The compliance officer's duty is not simply to ascertain whether a naughty has happened in the plant, which would be a breach of the environmental and health and safety provisions if it happened in the private sector.
The compliance officer will also have the duty of ascertaining whether the establishment is giving good service in terms of production. He or she will therefore have a jumbled job, trying to judge whether the employees of the organisation are doing a good job and earning their bonuses, whether for production or quality, as well as carrying out all the other functions relating to possible breaches of the environmental and health and safety legislation, if such legislation were to apply—which it will not—to the privatised GOCO, or government-owned, contractor-operated, plant.
Anybody who knows the Cardiff area will be aware of the problem with the location of AWE Llanishen. Although I have never visited or driven past Aldermaston and Burghfield, I believe that they are located in relatively leafy suburbs and that there are no highly built-up residential areas right at their edge. Cardiff is different. The atomic weapons establishment at Llanishen is in the middle of densely populated residential suburbs in a city of 300,000 people. That is probably unique for a nuclear weapons facility in the western world. In addition, AWE Llanishen is surrounded by other work places, such as the tax office. Thousands of people spend every day bang next door to the production facility at Llanishen.
I grew up in that area during the war when almost everybody in Cardiff had a relative working at what was then the Shell factory. Over 20,000 people worked at the royal ordnance factory then. During a war, people put up with a lot in terms of decisions about the location of such sites which they might not tolerate today. I stress that that plant is surrounded by residential areas in a city of 300,000 people.
That is why we are concerned about the reputation of the GOCO facilities in the United States, where the idea has come from. We want to know on the basis of what record the House is being asked to accept that GOCO management is better than the present public sector civil service Ministry of Defence management. Given their record in the United States, GOCOs are causing us considerable concern. The Government have a tendency to follow United States management devices without giving them proper and serious consideration. We are concerned that the Government have not properly thought through whether GOCO, which has a long tradition in the United States, will work satisfactorily in this country. Although it has a long tradition in the United States, it also has a long tradition of causing problems.
The film "Silkwood", which I seem to remember watching on television last Christmas, was a story about something going wrong in a GOCO facility in the Okie country, in the Appalachians, where serious problems arose because Kerr McGee, the GOCO contractor in that case, consistently breached all manner of health and safety and environmental legislation in the push continually to beat nuclear production records so that the organisation could meet its contracts and make good profits on them. Anybody who saw that film and who lives in the Cardiff area is naturally concerned.
I turn now to the attempt to apply GOCO in this country. How many people have expressed a strong interest at the interim stage, which has now been going on for two months? On an interim basis and without the benefit of this primary legislation, we hear that the Government have appointed Hunting-BRAE to act as their interim, semi-contractorised management contractors to run the four establishments. Nobody had previously heard of Hunting-BRAE. That firm was put together ad hoc, being formed out of one division of Hunting Engineering plus Brown and Root from Houston in Texas, plus—oddly enough—another public sector company in the Atomic Energy Authority.
Hunting-BRAE is therefore part public and part private. One might say that it is almost a cross-breed between a hybrid and a mongrel. Nobody had previously heard of Hunting-BRAE; it has no previous record. Although all its existing parent companies might have good records in their own industries—and although they have gained the confidence of Ministers—they are not names on which one could make a judgment about whether they are suitable to be given the contracts, at least for the present two years, and presumably then to win the long-term five to seven-year contract that will be available if the Bill is enacted.
Brown and Root has been famous for being close to the United States Government. When Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson became President and Vice-President of the United States in 1960, an apocryphal conversation is supposed to have taken place when victory was announced, in which President Kennedy—the first Roman Catholic President of the United States—was supposed to have said, "Right, now we can start to build that tunnel from the White House to the Vatican", and Lyndon Johnson is supposed to have replied, "Yes, as long as Brown and Root get the contract."
Although Brown and Root is the flagship of civil and mechanical engineering industry in Texas, we have never heard of Hunting-BRAE. It is not a household name about which one can say, "We know that, if Hunting-BRAE is in charge, everthing will be okay." We cannot say that, because the two associates have never worked together. This is very much a pig in a poke. There is no transparent chain of command from the managing director of Hunting-BRAE, so we cannot say that we know who to go to or whose backside to kick if something goes wrong. We shall be relying on an untried consortium and on the untried compliance officer mechanism if things go wrong. Naturally, that concerns people in Cardiff.
The Cardiff plant does not deal with radioactive substances. By and large, it deals with beryllium, which is a highly toxic substance. The Cardiff plant carries out precision engineering operations to provide high-quality, space-age components for nuclear warheads, rather than being involved in the final assembly or in the plutonium-related facilities in the manufacture of nuclear warheads. The work at the Cardiff plant is absolutely critical.
The city of Cardiff, of which I represent a quarter, wants to know what would happen if there was the sort of corner-cutting about which we have heard in connection with GOCOs in the United States. What would happen if a fire broke out and if a beryllium-enriched toxic cloud wafted over the whole city? You will be aware, Mr. Speaker—if you are not aware, I should make both you and the House aware—that although beryllium is not


radioactive, it is one of the most toxic substances on the face of this earth. Its effects are similar to those produced by asbestos and the effects of berylliosis on the lungs are comparable to those of asbestosis. Any increased fire hazard risk, as a result of corner cutting resulting from the pressure on management to earn bonuses, which would come about if the Bill were enacted, must be of enormous concern to any hon. Member who represents part of a city such as Cardiff, which has a nuclear weapons facility right in its centre.
We are anxious to know what the Minister can say about his observation that this primary legislation may assist the Cardiff factory in its ability to win more outside work. That is what he said to the press. We are mystified by the relationship between the Bill and that observation. It is no doubt true—it has been proved true in the past few years—that any plant, such as that at Cardiff which has enormous precision engineering skills, can and should win more outside work. The Cardiff factory made complex autoclave facilities for the national health service when nuclear weapons work was quiet. It carried out work that few other plants could carry out.
It is of much concern that the introduction of specific single-purpose management with one objective—simply to speed up the production rates of nuclear weapons—is unlikely to contribute to diversification from sole dependence on nuclear weapons. The Minister mentioned that earlier, and perhaps he will return to it when he replies to the debate.
I should be glad to hear any explanation of how Crown immunity can be compatible with diversification from nuclear weapons production. If a private sector company that is competing with AWE Llanishen for precision engineering work has to abide by modern health and safety and environmental legislation whereas AWE Llanishen does not, one can imagine the complaints that will be made to the Office of Fair Trading.
I rest on the point that the hypocrisy of the Government must be exposed. They are trying to gain all the supposed advantages of privatisation, but we must bear in mind the disadvantages that we shall suffer as a residential area with this facility sited right in the middle of it.

6 pm

Sir David Mitchell: I support the Bill, but I have several reservations, about which I hope to receive some reassurance, probably in Committee.
Many of Aldermaston's employees live in my constituency, in the villages of Tadley, Baughurst, Kingsclere and Overton. Indeed, the fence of the AWE forms the boundary of my constituency. I am sure that the House will therefore understand why I have a particular interest in certain parts of the Bill.
We live in dangerous times, with the unhappy prospect that, in the not-too-distant future irresponsible people will be able to have nuclear weapons. It is vital that our nuclear weapons are up to date and are delivered on time to ensure that, in a few years' time, we are not blackmailed. I see the Bill as a major step forward in achieving the production of nuclear weapons on time.
The staff of the atomic weapons establishment are the most loyal and dedicated to be found in any industry in the

United Kingdom. Their skills and professionalism are outstanding, but they work against a background of dangerous substances. It is of unique importance that there is trust and commitment, especially to safety. Many of the staff who work at Aldermaston are exasperated by the civil service bureaucracy. Given the factory's unique operation, it is as inappropriate to civil service bureaucracy as one can imagine. I quote from the letter of a constituent who works there, who speaks of
at every turn having to contend with the rigours of bureaucracy which has increased enormously since transferring from the UKAEA. This is so demoralising for team leaders and project managers with endless paperwork and delays in sometimes getting the simplest of jobs accomplished.
It would not be possible to sum up more neatly or more completely the problem and the exasperation that the Bill will enable the AWE to break away from, thereby offering it substantial benefits.
Wherever there is change, there is always anxiety among the staff and people affected by it. I have some reservations, to which I need to receive answers either now or in Committee. We are told that most of the jobs will be secure. One cannot definitely tell whether there may be some sporadic redundancies. Will the staff be any worse off if they are made redundant than they would have been had the existing employment arrangements continued? Will staff suffer any loss in their prospective pensions? That is of particular relevance to the older members of staff, who already can identify and look forward to a pattern of pension, some indexation and a standard of living in their retirement. Will that be at risk in any way?
In opening, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to a further consultative document on pensions that he will publish. Will it be published before the Committee stage? By that stage, will we know what is in the consultative document and what are the Government's views on it? I draw particular attention to the position of the ex-UKAEA staff, who have had one change in pension arrangements. I want a clear assurance that they will be no worse off as a result of the changes that are being made.
May we have an assurance that staff vetting will be as stringent as it has been in the past, and who will pay for it, which is of some relevance?
The most important of those factors is safety, not only in the plant and for its employees but for the residents of Tadley and Baughurst. The safety of the wider area as well as of those who work in the establishment is of much importance.
We must ensure that no corners are cut on safety. We have been given assurances on that, and I value those assurances. We know about the compliance officer's role, but can we be told more about the powers and the independence that he will have, because that, too, is particularly relevant?
Having expressed those perfectly natural anxieties on behalf of my constituents, I give the Bill a fair wind and will support its Second Reading, but I seek assurances on those matters both now and in Committee.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad to have the opportunity of following my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I listened to his description of the factories that are adjacent to his constituency, which apparently are close to residential areas. In my brief remarks—I appreciate that I must be


brief to ensure that every hon. Member has the opportunity to contribute to the debate—I shall be most concerned with ROF Llanishen. I am guilty of using the old initials; it is taking me some time to catch up with the new ones.
ROF Llanishen has been very much part of our community in Cardiff. It is in a residential area, but it is quite fanciful to describe it as a nuclear weapons facility. It is a high-precision engineering factory, but in no grammatical sense of the phrase could it be described as a nuclear weapons facility.
My comments essentially relate to that factory in my constituency and to those who work in it. High priority should be accorded to those who work in it. These are vital defence factories, the prime resources of which are their employees. Their skills and dedication make the quality of that important work force.
All those who are involved in this matter agree that change is necessary. I understand that the trade unions that represent the work force in the factories agree that change must be brought about, although they do not necessarily agree with the changes embodied in the Bill.
The Bill offers opportunities for better use of those vital defence factories and better employment for the people who work there. I see no reason why anyone employed in the factories should be worse off merely because of the change to contractorisation.
As recently as 2.45 this afternoon, I met three of my constituents who work at ROF Llanishen and who wanted to tell me their fears about the future, despite the assurances that they had been given. They said that the Bill did not adequately cover pensions and redundancies and that there were no guarantees about redundancies, contrary to their present position while they are part of the civil service. They said, in the same mood as those who say that change in the factories is necessary, that the only difference between their view and the Government's proposals was the loss of their civil service status.
I know that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will be applied and that they will essentially relate to pay and conditions of employment, but significant differences affect pensions and redundancy terms because of the differences between the civil service and the outside world.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement visited ROF Llanishen on 12 December. I know from those who work there that his visit was appreciated by those he met. They put these very points about pensions and redundancy terms and he sought to reassure them. He said that he expected the pensions and redundancy terms to be at least equal to the present provisions. I understand that he promised to consider their concerns further and even to consider whether it was possible or appropriate to change the Bill.
I know that my hon. Friend will give every consideration to the representations that hon. Members and those who work in the factories have made. Any reassurance which he can give the workers must be good and right. If he finds it possible to embody such changes in the Bill, that would be welcomed not only by me but by everyone who works at ROF Llanishen.
Safety is the paramount issue in Cardiff and at the other factories not only for the staff—although, naturally, they are the first to be concerned about it—but for all those who live near them, including my family, which is a neighbour

of ROF Llanishen. I have always known that that high-precision engineering factory operates to the highest standards. Independent monitoring has shown that it always operates not only within the safety limits but to practically the highest possible such limits—tests have shown that that factory sticks within 1 per cent. of the maximum permissible limits. Obviously, if possible, we should aim for even higher limits, not a lowering of those limits. Those who work at ROF Llanishen are concerned that contractorisation might lead to a different approach to standards and safety measurements. That must not happen.
My hon. Friend the Minister offered us the reassurance that there will be a compliance officer who will maintain the Ministry of Defence standards which are presently in force. That officer must have all the resources necessary to ensure that he maintains all those standards, so that those who work in the factories and those of us who live outside them are completely reassured that they will continue to operate to the highest standards.
With those important reservations, I give at least a cautious welcome to the Bill.

Mr. Tony Durant: I am pleased to speak on the Bill. I do so because, like my colleagues, I have constituents who live in my constituency but work at Aldermaston and Burghfield. I also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who represents the area and who, as many hon. Members know, has had a kidney transplant. I am pleased to report that he is mending satisfactorily. We hope that he will return soon. In fact, I have been doing his work for him, but he is now dealing with his own letters, which is one load off my back. He is taking a great interest in these matters.
Aldermaston and Burghfield are highly rated organisations of a very high standard. They integrate well into the local community and employ a large number of people n the area. All my references to them over the years have been based on their high calibre. However, I support the principle of contractorisation, perhaps because I feel, having heard from Ministers, that there is no alternative.
I was not entirely satisfied by the answers by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the question why did we not go down the route of having executive agencies. They are part of the Government's proposals in several parts of the civil service. I am still not convinced of the reasons why we did not leave the whole organisation within the civil service. That would have been a better way to proceed, and I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about that matter.
My constituents, like those of other hon. Members, are concerned about safety. Are we sure that the contractors will be conscious of safety? This is a volatile, dangerous activity. The present staff have high technical skills. In Reading, I have looked into the incidence of leukaemia among children who live in the area. Nothing has been proved, although there have been many research projects. The local population are worried about this activity being undertaken by the factories. They are dangerous places, and we must be sensitive to the concerns of local people.
I am also worried about security. After all, plenty of people in the world would like to get hold of some of the secrets of the establishment. It seems that other hon.


Members were taken all over it, but I was not allowed to go very far. It has been opened up a little, but some of the secrets have rightly been kept. The establishment should be kept as secure as possible. What will happen when the business is run by a contractor rather than those who work there at present?
The staff are worried about the future of their pension scheme, as I know from letters which I have received. In 1987, the trade unions and the management encouraged them to join pension schemes rather than to opt out, and they all did. But they are now worried that, having taken that decision, they will be in difficulties. What is the future of those who were in the UKAEA pension scheme? It is not a very good scheme. One of my constituents, for whom I have been battling for years, transferred from that scheme and has had difficulty in getting his money. I am anxious that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should clear up the anxieties which have been expressed.
Those staff who joined the principal civil service pension scheme would like some reassurances—rightly so, because their pension is their future, they work at the establishment and they live in the area. Although it is a nice area in which to live, the work position is not as good as it was. They want to keep their jobs rather than be made redundant. I should like the place to continue to be a successful establishment. I am concerned about those matters and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reassure me.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, which is a welcome and timely measure. As other hon. Members have said, it deals with an important subject. We live in an age in which there has been a proliferation of nuclear weapons and in perhaps as little as 10 years' time, there may be as many as 15 or 20 nuclear powers. It is extremely important that our nuclear deterrent is kept up to date, and Aldermaston and its satellite facilities are central to that.
Five years ago, I had the privilege of working briefly as a project manager for a firm of management consultants on a project at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston and I very much enjoyed the experience. I hasten to add that I now have no financial connection with any body or organisation connected with Aldermaston, with any commercial ventures with which it may now be involved or with any other defence contractor. I found it an interesting experience and I was extremely impressed by the calibre of the scientists at Aldermaston while I was studying the possible contractorisation of one facility.
I welcome the proposal to move to a Government-owned, contractor-operated arrangement for three reasons, two of which have already been covered succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), following my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks. One reason is the need to get away from civil service pay and conditions for specialised, high-grade work in an area in which living costs are exceptionally high. Within the framework of national pay bargaining, it is impossible to deal properly with pay requirements.
The second reason is the need to get away from civil service procedures where possible. Some procedures derive inevitably from the requirement for safety, which has been mentioned so often. Other procedures—I heard a lot about this when I was at Aldermaston—are just sheer bureaucracy, such as the need to have continual meetings, to produce minutes of those meetings and to comment on the minutes. There should be scope to get away from that.
The third reason, which has not been touched on, is also important and the heart of my contribution is concerned with the contractual arrangements. The two facilities in the world that are closest to the scientific side—I stress the word "scientific" because there is a far larger production side at the sites involved—are the Los Alamos facility and the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in America. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, they are run by the contractor operation of the university of California. That arrangement goes back to the second world war when Los Alamos played its famous role in developing the first atomic bomb. Apart from the appointment of the chief executive, the key part that the university of California plays in its arm's-length relationship with those two facilities is the system of peer review.
Under that system, eminent scientists from the university of California who are not directly involved in the programme periodically sit down with the scientists at the facility, study their work over an extended period and access it. That is very motivating for the scientists concerned. When I was at Aldermaston, it was raised as a complaint that nothing similar happened there. There are nominally a number of Government committees that look at such matters at arm's length. They are sometimes—but not always—manned by people of comparable expertise.
The fact that every scientist once every one or two years has the opportunity to sit eyeball to eyeball with other scientists—and one or two are Nobel prize winners—who will look at their work is a motivating experience. That system also pulls out the occasional rotten apple in the barrel and there are one or two of those even in the best organisations. The scientific side at Aldermaston is extremely good. We must never let the well-publicised problems on the production side detract from the fact that the Aldermaston scientific side has a reputation that is not only world class, but comparable with that of its American counterparts, which have 15 or 20 times as much to spend.
The expression "GOCO" can mean many different things. I visited the successful GOCO shipyard in Sydney, which is the best of the Australian naval dockyards. Sometimes the contractor runs things from top to bottom, as is the case with the Rocky Flats arrangement, the low technology end of the nuclear side in America. Alternatively, there can be a more arm's-length strategic arrangement which the university of California has with the two laboratories that I mentioned.
I firmly believe that for the scientific side at Aldermaston—the minority, but the most important end—it is best to go for the latter arrangement. It is essential that our key scientists there should continue to be Government representatives in the international arena. That is not a quibble about words. In the nuclear business, collaboration—principally with the Americans, but increasingly with the French—is essential. We cannot afford to do everything ourselves. I have it on good authority that it will not be acceptable to those with whom we deal in America or in France to have people arriving at international conferences and being billed as employees of


a contractor, rather than as Government representatives. It will be essential for those people to be covered not only by conditions relating to secrecy—which has already been dealt with adequately—but by conditions on commercially confidential intellectual property rights.
American and, increasingly, British contractors will not be willing to pass information to people who are not in some way tied to Government. It does not matter to whom they belong as employees. The crucial point is that their conditions of service must involve the key areas of secrecy and of intellectual property rights, and when people go to international conferences, they must bear a label saying "Government representative". That is the case with the key scientists at the two American laboratories although, technically, they are employees of the university of California. That is an important point; it is not just a quibble.
The Bill is splendid. For a number of reasons, it is right that we should make a GOCO out of Aldermaston. However, it is important that we get the contractual relationship right at the scientific end of the operation so that those who work in the key scientific posts—who may be doing the more sensitive work and who are oriented towards a scientific environment—maintain and enjoy their present international status through continuing to be recognised as Government representatives at international conferences abroad. They must also continue to be subject to their present constraints on the passing of knowledge. I commend the Bill to the House and I will vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. Allan Rogers: As every hon. Member who has participated this afternoon has said, the Bill is extremely important for many reasons. On Second Reading, we look at those reasons briefly, as we shall go into detail on them in Committee. Many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, have said that they will support the Bill, but with strong reservations in some areas. I accept that many of them said that because they have substantial constituency interests. It is right that they should look after the workers who live in their constituencies. I only wish that on some occasions they had looked after the interests of workers who live in my constituency. That was not to be and, sadly, this Friday we shall see the end of the last coal mine in the Rhondda valley. It is the end of a great era in British history. But there we are. Self-interest is as good a motive as any in politics. If people come to our side through self-interest, who am I to deny that?
I am sure that Conservative Members will be rushing to fill the Committee and I look forward to their support. I know that the Government Whip is greatly relieved at the possibility of having all these worthy gentlemen sitting on the Committee. He will not have to dragoon anyone. Of course, if they support our amendments, the Government Whip will be in greater trouble. I am looking forward to the Committee and, if necessary, to doing battle with the Under-Secretary of State. His unfailing courtesy will mean that he will listen to our arguments. However, as I have always said, we win the arguments but lose the votes.
The Bill is a response to incompetence. That has been acknowledged and was illustrated by the hon. Member for

Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who had the honesty and decency to acknowledge that he was part of the incompetence for a brief period. We will forgive him.

Mr. Brazier: The House understands that the hon. Gentleman has to fill his speech somehow, but he should not throw random barbs around the Chamber. He must have heard me say that Aldermaston has on its scientific side a world-class reputation disproportionate to the amount of money it spends.

Mr. Rogers: Yes. I often wondered what the hon. Gentleman was doing there.
The Bill is a response to the Government's incompetence. They are acknowledging that they cannot run the atomic weapons establishments. It is an open and honest acknowledgment. The enormous criticism of the Government's performance in the past year or so is finalised in the Bill. It is a bolt-hole Bill. They are running away from the problem by saying, "You do it." They are hoping to offload the problem on to a private company. Of course, the private company does not mind because it will receive substantial resources from the Government. It will probably be a substantial contributor to the Conservative party, but there we are. That is called the recirculation of Government money.
The Government will have to face the same problems because they will not go away. The problems of today will be the same next year and the year after. The difficulty is that there will be one stage in between and the Government may have more problems in the future than they have now.
It is strange that in the proposals the problems have now been identified. On the Conservative Benches are all the business men, managers and those such as the hon. Member for Canterbury who visit such establishments. I should have thought that once the problems have been identified and once it has been acknowledged that they are not intractable, one should just apply oneself and resolve them. The Government are not doing that. They are saying, "We are incapable of managing these institutions and running the business, so please do it for us." This is privatisation in a real sense. Talking about contractorisation obfuscates the truth. It is a Government-owned, contractor-operated privatisation.
We shall be looking closely at how the capital assets are to be controlled. I am not sure whether they will be handed over to the company or whether they will be in the form of a lease. It is a little ambiguous in the Bill, but we shall pursue it later. I wonder whether the company knows what a shambles some of the buildings are. Is it aware of the Government's incompetence in relation to construction contracts, particularly the A90 buildings constructed specifically for the Trident warhead?
We are not talking about the privatisation of an engineering company or a consumer commodity such as water or electricity. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is the privatisation of the means of production of the most fearful weapons known to mankind. I honestly and sincerely believe that it should not be in private hands. Also, it is the privatisation of the production of material at the very frontiers of technology, not only in engineering and electronics but in physics and chemistry with potential dangers for safety within and without the establishments. We heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the


Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talk of the serious problems that could occur in the Cardiff residential area if there happened to be an escape of, for example, beryllium gases. That is possible unless security and safety are tightly controlled.
Someone said to me, "Why are you bothered about this Bill? Many weapons are produced by private companies." Of course, under this Government, with the giveaway of Royal Ordnance, almost all the production of weapons is now in private hands. This is different. We are not talking about aeroplanes, ships, tanks or weapon delivery systems, but about the ultimate explosives being constantly enhanced through research at these establishments.
We shall wish to discuss many issues in Committee, not least those raised, rightly, by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) about the precise position on pensions. Other hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the security of employment of those presently working in the establishments. Will they have jobs for the period of a contract? For my sins, I happen to be a geologist by profession and I worked for some time on contracts that were for a specific period.
If we give a contract to a private company, will we be telling it to take on workers under a specific contract, or will it be told, "Treat your workers as you like"? Will the Government wash their hands of the workers once they have been handed over to the private contractors? Is that what it is about? We shall pursue that matter in Committee. Conservative Members are now feeling the pinch that has been felt over the past 10 years under this Government by hon. Members in Wales, Scotland and the north of England because substantial numbers of their constituents may be thrown out of work.
As I said, the physical framework and fabric—the buildings and surroundings—of the atomic weapons establishments are in an appalling condition. The Government know that that is so. At Aldermaston we have had one of the most appalling examples of the Government's inefficiency and mismanagement of the defence industry. The construction of the A90 buildings is a saga of cost and time overruns, overcharging and profiteering. It is a sad and sorry mess and, in the near future, I am sure that it will lead to criminal charges. Not even this Government can sweep that amount of dirt under the carpet.
The Minister knows about that, because the information has been laid before the Ministry of Defence. It has not acted upon it yet, but it will eventually because it will have to. The problem is not just the buildings and problems with the roof, but items such as stainless steel tanks that have welding problems and may, for example, allow the emission of toxic gases into the atmosphere. Similar gases may be released into the Cardiff area.
That work was done to British Nuclear Fuels specifications, was privately constructed and inspected and approved by the Ministry of Defence yet it had to be done all over again because it was unsafe. Who picked up the bill for the extra millions of expenditure? The taxpayer. That does not fill me with confidence about the proposals in the Bill for the production, the supervision of both performance and safety, and the ultimate delivery of the

finished product—the nuclear warhead—on time. I am at a loss to understand how some of the proposals will operate, and we shall explore them in Committee.
Another point that we shall examine in Committee is the relationship of sub-contractors within the contracts. In paragraph 303 of this year's defence estimates the Government said:
On all contracts worth more than £1 million we review with the prime contractor his plans for awarding sub-contract work, paying special attention to sub-contracts to his subsidiaries.
Where in the Bill is that assurance carried through to this contractorisation? Will the Government inspect subcontractors or will they simply hand over inspection to the contractors? I am worried about not only the health and safety aspect but the performance of sub-contractors within the overall contracts.
Incidentally, I noticed that in paragraph 304 of the estimate, the Government said:
We firmly believe in the advantages of prime contractors managing projects on our behalf … Taut contracts with firm or fixed prices and the use of payments linked to achievements give the prime contractor a clear interest in speedy and efficient development and production.
That is quite a departure for the Government. I am not sure how they will achieve that aim. They have never done so in the past 10 years.
During the opening speech by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I, like several other hon. Members, was disappointed by his response to a question about consultation with the trade union movement. He had an absolute ideological block. A gate dropped and he said, "No, we will not consult." The Minister was at pains to say that only the views of Members of Parliament could be considered. His words were, "Parliament is supreme." That is ironic because the only reason why we are discussing this matter tonight is that the Government are determined to pass the AWEs out of the control of Parliament. On one aspect, the Minister beats his breast about the strength and supremacy of this place, yet the Government spend all their time moving responsibility for issues such as this out of this Chamber. Therefore, they make public accountability even more difficult.

Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misconstrued what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said. My hon. Friend said that consultation in Committee could be only with Members of Parliament. Clearly, that is correct.

Mr. Rogers: Yes. I know that that is what the Minister hedged back on. But those of us who know the Minister and some of the Conservative Members present readily identify the ideological block which arose as soon as the words "trade unions" were mentioned.
The Minister also gave some reasons for the exemptions in the schedule. A Conservative Member, not I, said that he did not find the reasons convincing. Nor do Opposition Members. The privileges and immunities which clause 3 extends to the new GOCOs are matters which we shall examine closely in Committee. We give the Minister warning now that we might spend long hours on the schedule, because its effect is to exempt the AWE from most of the controls that would apply to privately owned factories.
It is intended that 13 Acts of Parliament will be suspended including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Explosives Act 1923 and the Planning


(Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. I am not yet convinced that the new compliance body is capable of protecting the public interest. The exemptions may protect the Crown—that is what they are for—but that is of little help to people who work in or live near the AWEs. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, we shall want to examine the legal basis of the compliance office.
I have taken my allocation of time. As I said, the proposals are the Government's response to their incompetence and inability to run the AWEs. We believe, as do some Conservative Members, that there are better ways to resolve the problems. We shall oppose the measure here and in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): This has been a useful debate and in the time available I shall seek to respond to the points raised. If I cannot do so, I shall write to hon. Members on the matters which they raised. I look forward to the careful scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. I am encouraged to feel that we might survey at great leisure the highways and byways of the Rhondda constituency. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has much to teach us about his constituency.
This is a technical Bill and it must be argued closely. I shall listen carefully to the points made in Committee, because it is important in a Bill of this nature to get it absolutely right. I pay tribute right at the beginning of my speech to the people who work at the AWEs. I have had the privilege of meeting some of them and I shall meet more. They are dedicated people. Many have worked in the establishments for many years, serving the country. I recognise their skill and dedication and, as I shall describe later, we intend fully to protect their position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) asked about consultation. His point was correct. We take seriously the need to consult everyone who might be affected by the Bill. Whenever I go to the establishments, I make sure that I meet the trade union representatives. I shall listen carefully to what they say about the Bill. I want to know their fears, because they represent the people who will be affected. Indeed, many of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate are the same as those made to me by people in the trade unions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister has given some helpful assurances. The staff at AWE Foulness, some of whom are my constituents, have been confused by the assurances given to them over a period. When consideration of the Bill is completed, would not it be helpful if every member of staff were given a small sheet of paper outlining the various assurances given? If the facts are known it might help to remove many of the uncertainties that have arisen.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have developed good lines of communication. We are sending out to the staff various pieces of paper that explain our approach to pensions and so forth. However, his point about communications is important.
I remind the House of the purpose of the Bill. At its heart is our need to ensure that we manufacture our

nuclear deterrent in the most effective way possible. That is our duty at the Ministry of Defence. The operations of the AWEs combine research and development and manufacturing. It is our experience and belief that those activities are managed far better in the private than in the public sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) asked why the AWE could not remain an agency. The truth is that agency status does not provide the flexibility to employ the necessary people or full professional management. At the halfway stage, there are only 20 people from the private sector and they cannot bring all the skills to manage this manufacturing facility to the best of their ability. We have learnt the lesson that manufacturing is best done by people in the private sector. In the manufacture of atomic warheads, it is absolutely essential that the assets remain owned by the Government. That is why the Government will continue to own the buildings, machinery and equipment in the establishment. The contract that we draw up with the contractors will define clearly the parameters of their activities.
Many hon. Members are worried about safety. My hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West., for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Reading, West asked about it. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West that our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) is making good progress. I also know of his interest. Labour Members have also voiced their anxiety about safety.
Safety is a key concern. It will be built into the heart of the contract. We already have many safeguards and more will be added after the contract. The safety division, which will continue, will report to the chief executive as it does now. The Health and Safety Executive has an important part to play in the supervision of safety and will continue that activity.
There is one additional safeguard. At present, the Government own and run the AWE and cannot be prosecuted. After full contractorisation if the employer contravenes the health and safety provisions, he can be prosecuted. There will be an extra layer of safety. A compliance office will be well manned by Ministry of Defence officials and will ensure that all safety aspects are fully complied with. If, by some unimaginably stupid act, the contractor fails to comply with safety as he should, the compliance office can cancel the contract. If it does so, it will be easy for the Ministry of Defence to return the AWE to Government management. That facility exists in the Bill.
I had an interesting, enjoyable and instructive visit to the plant at Cardiff. The employees there told me that they were worried about safety. They would be absolutely certain to make their fears known if there were any likelihood of their being asked to do anything that was unsafe or involved unsafe practices. Our best policemen for safety are the employees themselves.
We have had a substantial building programme to improve buildings and make them safer. In contrast to what the hon. Member for Rhondda says, the A90 building has been finished. It is safe and modern. The problems faced there are a good example of how badly managed buildings often are in the public sector.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I have too little time.
The ultimate guarantee of safety is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the safety at AWE.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West asked about radiation. It is important to note that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment said that radiation from Aldermaston was negligible and could not endanger local people. Everyone who has contact wears dose meters and is monitored. Our aim is to reduce exposure to radiation. At present, one is exposed to less radiation in Aldermaston than in the natural environment—less than 2 mSv a year.
Hon. Members raised the important matter of security. Obviously, in the production of nuclear warheads everyone has an interest in security. The Ministry of Defence police will look after security, as they do now. They will remain employed by the Ministry of Defence and security will be their responsibility. There will also be proper vetting of everyone who works there by the Ministry of Defence, as there is now.
All hon. Members are anxious about employment conditions. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, we shall ensure that the conditions of those who are transferred from the civil service to employment under a contractor will be protected.
Many of my hon. Friends asked about pensions. I can give the commitment that pensions will be as good in future as they are now. They will be index-linked. Moreover, we shall consult fully. We intend to issue a document in January—we hope to do so before the Committee stage starts—and to discuss it.

Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister say whether staff who are taken on after contractorisation will have index-linked pensions?

Mr. Carlisle: Those people will have access to the same pension scheme as we shall negotiate for the employees who transfer. Moreover, for the first time some employees will be trustees who will help to look after the terms and conditions of the pension fund. We give that guarantee. I know what a worry it is. In the same way, if anyone should be made redundant—I do not in the least expect it, because our programme for the nuclear deterrent is firm—the redundancy terms will be as good as they are now.
AWE employees will have greater scope. They will be away from bureaucracy and its frustrations. As properly managed people with great skills, they will have greater scope.
Many other important points were raised and I look forward to debating them in Committee. This is a technical Bill and we must be careful.
This is a simple Bill, the aim of which is to enable us to be certain of meeting our nuclear weapons programmes in the most effective way possible. It is important for national security. At the same time, we are committed, above all, to the safety and security of the operation and our proposals will ensure that. We shall safeguard the terms and conditions of employment of the work force and ensure that pensions will be just as good as they would have been without this change.
In reality, management by the private sector within the secure ownership of the Government will lead to a more

efficient operation and better prospects for the employees. This is a practical and sensible way forward, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 221.

Division No. 34]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Aitken, Jonathan
Eggar, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert
Evennett, David


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Durant, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy






Knapman, Roger
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, Sir William


Lightbown, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sumberg, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thorne, Neil


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilshire, David


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Irvine Patnick.





NOES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Allen, Graham
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gould, Bryan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Graham, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Bellotti, David
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benton, Joseph
Haynes, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bidwell, Sydney
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Blunkett, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Boateng, Paul
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoyle, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cartwright, John
Kennedy, Charles


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ron


Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McMaster, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John

Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morley, Elliot


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fraser, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul






Nellist, Dave
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


O'Brien, William
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


O'Hara, Edward
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Parry, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Randall, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Redmond, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wallace, James


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Jo
Wareing, Robert N.


Robertson, George
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rooney, Terence
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Sillars, Jim
Mr. John McFall.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the construction and operation of a high quality, high speed, dedicated mainline rail link between Heathrow airport and Paddington station. Heathrow is the largest airport in terms of international passengers handled and, excluding the United States, the largest by any means. That has been achieved with the skill and foresight of those in the aviation industry, who have built on our geographical advantage to create an airport second to none.
Many competitors, particularly in Paris and Amsterdam, would like to take over that lead, and one way to do that is to make provision for better ground access. Access to Heathrow is by motorway, trunk roads and a wide range of public transport, including the London underground. That is currently adequate, but unless there is provision soon for wider choice, congestion and overcrowding will spoil the otherwise excellent and efficient service now provided to the aviation industry.
The idea of a mainline railway link to Heathrow is not new. Powers were obtained in 1967 for a link on the southern region. Those powers lapsed after Government studies led to the Piccadilly line being extended to the airport. In the airports inquiry of 1981 to 1983, the inspector recognised that surface access to Heathrow needed improving, and recommended that a mainline rail link be considered. The Government accepted that, and initiated the Heathrow surface access studies in 1985, with a remit to examine a report on surface links between central London and Heathrow airport. It was from those studies that the current proposals emerged. They involved wide-ranging consultation and examining numerous schemes, different London termini, alternative routes and proposals, both by road and rail.
The joint British Rail-BAA proposal was chosen in 1988 by the Government from a number of competing schemes, and plans have been developed in considerable detail and refined since then. Its construction would immediately help in reducing pressure on the M4, other roads in west London and the crowded Piccadilly line.
The Heathrow Express Railway Bill was deposited in another place in November 1988. After its Second Reading in February 1989—

Mr. Toby Jessel: Could my hon. Friend quantify the amount of relief that the scheme would give to the heavily congested M4 and A4, in particular the A4 Cromwell road, between one and five miles to the west of central London, which affects not only my constituents but those of many other Members in west London and beyond?

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend will be aware that a reduction of a relatively small percentage in numerical terms can have a considerable effect on the road network. I am sure that, over the August holiday period, he has witnessed a reduction of 5 or 10 per cent. in the volume of traffic, which can considerably speed up journey times. Any saving must be enormously helpful, but quite a


number of taxi and car journeys to Heathrow would be made unnecessary if the proposal were brought into effect, which would create the desired advantage.
The subject was considered in Committee in April and May of 1989. The Committee was concerned about the effect of the surface section of the route on green belt land. The promoters responded positively by introducing an additional provision that routed the railway underground, at an additional cost of about £12 million.
The Heathrow express is a joint project between BAA plc, formerly the British Airports Authority, now in the private sector, and British Rail. BAA can be involved in such a project now that it is a private sector company and brings to the enterprise an unrivalled understanding of the air passenger market and considerable financial strength. British Rail brings its undoubted operational experience as the operator of some of the busiest short-distance routes in the world, as well as its strength in marketing the project as part of the national railway network.
The key to the Heathrow express is the high-quality, high-speed, dedicated nature of the service. It is designed to serve air passengers wanting to get to and from Heathrow and central London. The proposed service is for trains to operate from 5 am to 11.30 pm—outside those hours, very few flights operate from the airport. It is proposed that trains should run every 15 minutes. The journey time from Paddington to Heathrow, terminals 1, 2 and 3, will be 16 minutes and to terminal 4, 20 minutes—a dramatic improvement on the existing form of travel.
The trains will be specially designed, electric multiple units with provision for large amounts of baggage. They will be fully accessible to passengers with disabilities.

Sir Dudley Smith: As a supporter of the Bill, may I point out to my hon. Friend that the road journey is unreliable? One has to leave at least an hour early in either direction. Only last evening, returning from parliamentary duties abroad, I was delayed on the underground for an hour, for technical reasons, on my way to vote in the House.

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The new service would be a marked improvement, and it is something that we must have if Heathrow is to compete with other European airports.
High-quality information will be a key feature, available on board from BAA or from special displays. The trains will be driven by British Rail drivers.

Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend for not being present for the start of his speech. He has just finished speaking about the route, but does he remember that I have raised the question of a westward-facing link, so that trains from south Wales, the west country and the south-west can travel directly into Heathrow? Does he agree that the BAA, by having use of what are the primary pieces of railway line in this country, has a public duty? Can he give an assurance that, at some point during the passage of the Bill—as those who support it do not want to be disruptive at a later stage—he will consider an amendment to provide for land to be reserved, and if necessary for provision to be made, for that important westward-facing link?

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert on the railway system, and I am sure that he joins in my feeling of delight that a lot of money is to be spent in this

way. He will appreciate that the scheme must stand on its own feet financially. Nothing in the Bill will prevent a connection to the west in due course if demand arises, but we must be satisfied that there is such a demand. At present, it does not seem to exist—but as soon as such a link becomes viable, I am sure that it could be introduced.

Mr. Peter Snape: The relevance of the intervention of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is recognised in all parts of the House, but I am concerned also about a possible link with the former Southern Railway line, west of Feltham. Right hon. and hon. Members will want to ensure that the new service is not built in isolation but will form part of the over all rail network. It should have connections both to the south and the west. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it will be feasible to provide a step-plate junction, or a series of such junctions, to allow the line to be extended to the former Southern Railway link near Feltham at some future date? Can he indicate the promoters' intentions in that regard?

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that important aspect. I believe that it is hoped that there will eventually be a link to the south, but that too will depend on the viability of such a service. It is important to ensure that any expenditure at this stage is not out of context with the scheme's overall cost. It should be possible to examine the provision of a link such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but cost will be an important factor. It would be wrong to add to the expense of the whole project, and thus to the ticket costs of those people who use the service, by introducing too elaborate a connection. However, it is the intention to explore that possibility.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will know from his vast experience of the railways that, whatever view may be held of where a junction should be introduced, after five years or so, engineers often reach the conclusion that it was not the right choice of location, so a lot of the expense can prove to be abortive. Bitter experience has shown that it is not always wise to spend too much money on providing such a facility too early in a scheme.

Mr. Snape: Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will be disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's reply. He must appreciate that the provision of such a junction, or a series of such junctions, in a tunnel is extremely difficult and expensive—and if that provision is not made at this stage, it is unlikely that it will be done in future, except at enormous expense. I appreciate the difficulties in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, but unless that aspect is considered sympathetically in Committee, the passage of the Bill is likely to be more protracted than it would be, given a more sympathetic reply from the promoter.

Mr. Thorne: I intended to make it clear that that aspect had been sympathetically considered already, and that much work had been devoted to it. Certainly, the question of providing some form of demountable section in the tunnel is being considered, and further consideration will be given to that aspect in Committee. It is the promoters' wish to make the new rail link as profitable and successful an enterprise as they can. However, much will depend on the final overall cost of such an enhancement. If it runs into many millions of pounds, it would be wrong unfairly


to weight the ticket prices for passengers using that dedicated line and thereby make the whole scheme unviable.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Once the Bill has passed through its Committee stage, right hon. and hon. Members may want to take a view on how much of the scheme's costs the promoters should bear and how much should be considered and extraneity. We are now 100 years on from the opening of the line between Stockwell and King William street, which led on over 17 years to a mammoth expansion of the London underground system. If every new infrastructure project is to be half-blocked in the House of Commons for years, few new projects will come forward, because managers will say that they take too long to go through.
I hope that we will find a way of allowing some extra provision to come forward, so that one can consider a viable project together with a few add-ons. Further infrastructure projects will be necessary if we are to double our standard of living again over the next 30 years. A part of that doubling will require infrastructure projects relating to mass-transit operations.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend has vast experience of the transport sector. I assure him that the promoters are most anxious that the scheme will be effective and viable. I accept that there are other possibilities for the project, to which I shall refer later. No doors are being closed, and we shall try to ensure that the link caters for the 21st century—which is what it is all about.
Paddington Station will have a pair of platforms dedicated to the Heathrow express, where there will always be a train waiting and a special ticket office will be provided. The taxi and car set down and pick up arrangements are to be modified to ensure a better balance between demand and supply. The express platforms, which will be centrally located, will give easy and level access to taxi ranks and car waiting areas, with simple routes to new escalators that will lead to the London underground. The rearrangement of taxi operations will have the added benefit of reducing rat runs for vehicles through nearby residential streets.
I know that some local residents would like a much more radical change in Paddington's road access arrangements, and British Rail discussed that in detail with Westminster city council. The promoters would also be happy to see that happen, and there would seem to be a window of opportunity to achieve it in conjunction with the construction of platforms for the proposed crossrail link.
Works numbered 1A to 5 provide for the construction of the branch line from the Great Western main line near Stockley Bridge to Heathrow airport. The works begin as a twin-track, cut-and-cover tunnel, continuing as a bored tunnel beneath the M4 and open green belt land. Beneath the airport there will be two stations, one serving terminals 1, 2 and 3 and the other serving terminal 4, each with direct links to the terminal buildings via lifts and escalators, including provision for wheelchairs and for baggage trolleys. The bored tunnel between the two stations will be a single track. The construction of massive stations beneath busy airport terminal areas requires careful planning.
Works numbered 6A to 9 provide for the construction of an airport junction. As the express will be using the existing western region fast main line from Paddington in conjunction with the 125 mph inter-city high speed trains, a junction must allow for high-speed points, deceleration and acceleration lanes and flyover for the up eastbound airport branch line.
Disruption to existing operations will be minimised, and local residents will be protected by some special environmental protection measures. Houses next to the existing main line currently experience noise from existing trains. A special green wall, designed to blend in with the railway embankment, will help to reduce noise levels from existing trains and the quieter Heathrow express trains. Some former gravel pits in the area have become ecologically important in the short period since they were dug; the promoters will be taking steps to minimise interference and more than replace areas lost.
Works numbered 10 to 13 permit bridge raising to allow overhead electric wires to be installed on all four mainline tracks at various locations between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington. Other works on the main line for which new powers are not needed include modifications to track works and the installation of new signalling which will also benefit passengers on existing services to the west of England and south Wales.
In order to undertake the works, land and rights have to be purchased and part III provides the power to do so. No house will need to be demolished. Some Government vacant land associated with the Public Record Office has to be acquired. As most of the line runs in tunnel, little land has to be acquired on the surface except for emergency escape shafts and landscaping. However, some land is required for temporary use for a number of working sites.
Part IV contains the normal protective provisions. Within part V, which covers miscellaneous and general matters, is clause 38. That seeks to disapply sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962. That is necessary because the line, being designed as a special airport link, would be inhibited if the need to consult over closure proposals caused further delays and financial losses. There is no provision for the payment of a public service obligation grant for this line in the unlikely event that it should not prove to be profitable.
All those works add up to a very expensive project, some £235 million at 1989 prices, 80 per cent. of which is to be funded by the BAA and the remainder by BR. The two parties have entered into a joint venture agreement which determines their rights, responsibilities and obligations, and sets out how the income is to be shared. BR's basic return is guaranteed, but there are also incentives in the form of bonus and penalty payments to ensure that the trains run to a strict time-keeping schedule.
The Bill allows for the linking of Heathrow airport to the United Kingdom's mainline railway network. The initial proposals are straightforward and seek to serve a specific market. However, once linked to the network, many other services become possible, some requiring no new powers or infrastructure, while others require modest additions.
While ultimately any decision on which additional services should be run will be for the operators, they will clearly want to take into account the views of users and representative groups. Clearly, one attractive possibility is through operation to Liverpool street and beyond via


crossrail, with some trains stopping at intermediate stations. In the longer term, the possibilities for extensions and additions are wide, and the promoters' strategy is to ensure that none of those possibilities are precluded. An example would be for a west-facing link which could be added in a number of ways, such that, if the western region mainline is electrified, trains could operate into Heathrow from the west.

Mr. Adley: The western region main line is due to be electrified from Reading as part of crossrail. If my hon. Friend—I do not say this unkindly—reads the railway press avidly, as I am sure he does, he will know that his comment a moment ago about being linked to the main-line system of BR would be regarded as somewhat cynical, when in fact it is only linked to westbound trains coming out of Paddington.
In response to my first intervention, my hon. Friend said that those things would be looked at. Will he give me an assurance that, during the Bill's passage, there will be a full cost-benefit analysis and a further evaluation by British Rail, as a partner in the project, of the advantages to people from the west country, south Wales, Birmingham and so on, of a west-facing link?
Does my hon. Friend understand that, if he is seeking, as he must be doing, to maximise revenue for the Bill's sponsors, there must be some evaluation of how much extra traffic could be brought into Heathrow by rail if people from, say, Bristol, did not have to whiz past the junction, go into Paddington, get off with all their luggage, transfer to another platform and then go back along the route that they had just travelled? Will he please give an assurance that, before the Bill finishes its passage through the House, we shall be presented with a proper evaluation of that?

Mr. Thorne: I do not read the railway press as avidly as my hon. Friend, but I read it quite closely. I am sure that he will be aware that the traffic which comes from other areas to Heathrow airport is relatively small and that that is why such a link is not as attractive as it might other wise be. For example, I believe that only 1·5 per cent., 2 per cent. at the most, of the traffic using Heathrow comes from Wales.

Mr. Adley: Because there is no railway.

Mr. Thorne: But they have their own airports, and I am anxious that not all passengers should come to London, because that is what makes roads so difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) complained about the amount of road traffic going through his constituency. We must have a balance in these matters. The matter has been evaluated, and the promoters find that it is not cost-effective at the moment. When the network is electrified into Wales, there is no earthly reason why such a scheme should not be taken up at that time.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that, so far as possible during the Bill's passage, he engenders a favourable climate for the laying down of not only the link to the west but the one to the south, and the rail infrastructure to make possible a fifth terminal? That is the long-term potential of the airport, which will be nullified unless proper rail links are put in in advance.

Mr. Jessel: Rubbish.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will see that there is some resistance to his suggestion. The question of a fifth terminal is not one that we are here to discuss tonight. so I shall quickly pass on.

Mr. Snape: I think that I speak on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we are aware of the difficulties the hon. Gentleman faces in introducing this legislation, which he is doing in such an able way.
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that it was not cost-effective for the promoters to accept a west-facing link at this time. Of course it is not, because the promoters' only interest is in ferrying as many people as possible from Paddington to Heathrow airport. But will he accept it from me that about 5 million people currently use the coach links from Reading and Woking, and it is joining up Reading and Woking with a line through Heathrow that we are about in the instruction which, sadly, for understandable reasons, has not been accepted? Is not 5 million a substantial number, bearing in mind that it will inevitably grow in the 1990s?

Mr. Thorne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the promoters will look carefully at the link. There is no question of their ruling it out.

Mr. Snape: Are the Government?

Mr. Thorne: If the Government should decide to come forward with some funds to help the promoters on some future occasion, that is a different matter. Tonight, we are discussing the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome such a measure as a first step. We should not pull the idea down, because that would remove the opportunity for expansion into a number of other areas which many other people want. We must leave the options open and speed the passage of this Bill—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This procedure clarifies matters. Part of the difficulty is the lack of a coherent Government policy for railways. If only there were a double Y junction at Harlington and another one at Feltham, all would be clear: people could go from Reading to Heathrow, Croydon and perhaps on to Brighton.
As for crossrail, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a single terminal at Paddington has a disadvantage? Would it not be possible to run suburban trains through to Stratford and possibly Stansted, and to provide an extended dedicated service, to be run on the Gatwick principle, a little further into London, so as to have an alternative destination with all sorts of advantages over the proposal for a single terminal?

Mr. Thorne: It would not be possible to do that under the present proposal. It is an excellent idea to provide the public with a good, efficient, fast and reliable service. It would be unfortunate to spread out that service by sending it to different locations at this stage, but this is only a step in the right direction. In the 21st century, many more facilities will be required.
I am sure that opportunities for crossrail and approaches from the south will materialise. The question is how and when, but I am afraid that we are not here to discuss that tonight. It would be quite wrong to divert our


attention from this essential measure if we are to maintain our position as an international air centre, which is the objective of the Bill. The strategy is one of flexible response, but it must be made clear that, until the initial link is provided, no additions, extensions or long-term strategy are possible.
I began by referring to Heathrow's competitors, which want to steal its valuable position and which are therefore developing new mainline rail links to their airports. In many ways, they are just catching up on our lead. In so doing, they will employ the latest designs and operating techniques to make the links as effective as possible.
Arguably, London has already waited too long for a fast rail link to its principal airport. If the House agrees, it will be possible for the first train to run in 1995, 10 years after the planning process started. The Heathrow express project will then allow Heathrow to maintain its lead and even increase it by ensuring that passengers have the widest choice of flights and services and the widest choice of transport opportunities. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made a good point. It was remiss of me not to inform the House earlier that Mr. Speaker has not selected the instruction, but the topic of it can be commented on in the course of the debate.

Mr. Morgan: There is little point in repeating material already covered in depth in the carry-over debate, but it is worth repeating one fundamental point that emerged from it a month ago. Since the former Secretary of State for Transport, who has now departed to a thousand hurrahs, made his great announcement on 9 October about the London crossrail link from Paddington to Liverpool Street—it had greater significance in its backwash effect, as it included the announcement of the first 40 miles of the Great Western main line between Paddington and Reading—it has become clear that this Bill should be withdrawn and studied again by the promoters and then re-presented to the House taking into account that momentous announcement at the Conservative party conference. Ninety per cent. of the length of the line in this Bill is on the Great Western main line, but when it was originally planned and presented the Government had made no commitment to electrifying the south Wales main line beyond the point at which it passes just north of Heathrow airport. Now that there is such a commitment, we are in a different ball game.
The promoters could have gone away for four months and realised that, as the Government are committed to electrification through to Reading, they had a different set of options and modalities for integrating the different power modes, different junctions and different expenditures—because the Government will carry out part of the job, by means of the usual British Rail external financing limit, which the promoters had thought they would have to carry out on their own. Now the Government are committed to crossrail, taking electrification from Reading to Paddington, linking through to

Liverpool Street and connecting with services to the eastern region of British Rail straight through to Paddington—

Mr. Spearing: Not connected all the way.

Mr. Morgan: Not completely, but the potential for such connection has been brought much nearer.
In this context, the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) becomes even more important. Since the announcement of the crossrail approval by the Government, Paddington has become a far more critical station. Traditionally it has been a friendly home from home for people from south Wales, Bristol and central southern England, and the home of commuter services to the western part of the home counties. All of a sudden the station has acquired the additional function of providing, as the promoters would have it, the main link for high-speed transport from central London to Heathrow. Paddington will become the hub, the most important railway station in Britain and one of the half dozen most important stations in western Europe.
So the promoters will have to take into account the much greater pressure on Paddington that will result from crossrail being added to the Heathrow connection, on top of the traditional role that the station has played since the days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the early connections to Bristol and south Wales a century and more ago.
Members of Parliament have a duty to rub our brain cells together and not just to give the Bill a free passage. We must try to imagine how the connections are supposed to work together. We must ask ourselves what the total impact on the planning of Paddington station will be, with crossrail, the Heathrow express and the traditional services. This is not merely a selfish concern of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and myself about longer queues for taxis at Paddington when we are rushing to get to Welsh Question Time on a Monday afternoon. Paddington has the potential to become the most important and best-planned station in western Europe—or to become the most important and worst-planned, if the project is carried out piecemeal.
The promoters suggest that when crossrail comes along it will be separate, and that Paddington's traditional links to south Wales are different, too. These are not separate aspects: all these services will pass through Paddington. The station cannot expand sideways into densely packed Paddington—that is out of the question—so how will all the traffic fit together?

Mr. Spearing: We are talking not about connections to Liverpool Street but about through services of any sort of combination from Liverpool Street on to Stratford, Cambridge or Ipswich—including possibly to Stratford international. What my hon. Friend said about Paddington's expansion was, happily for him, incorrect. Is he aware that British Rail has a huge site north of Paddington which is empty and which may well be disposed of for some form of development?
As regards overall planning, would it not be wise at least to ensure that space is made available for additional extensions to Paddington if they become necessary for the reasons that my hon. Friend has just advanced?

Mr. Morgan: I defer to my hon. Friend's detailed knowledge of London and its railway system. I was pointing out that there are two schools of thought on the Bill. There are supporters of the enclave principle of railway connection, and supporters of the connection school of railway development. The enclave school of thought is represented by the sponsor and the promoters of the Bill. They think that we should consider the link as an isolated piece of development, serving central London and Heathrow. The link will run on the western region main line for 10 of its 12 or 13 miles, but nevertheless they think of it as if it were on an island, not connected to the national railway system. They think that it is entirely accidental that it has anything to do with the western region main line.
The other school of thought is that, as it will run on the western region main line, hon. Members should consider the national dimension of the Bill. That line does not merely go to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea but proceeds on to Fishguard and the Irish ferries, so it is an international line. Through the link from Didcot to Oxford, Banbury and Birmingham, the line connects with the rest of the midlands, the north and Scotland and offers an alternative route, instead of the better-known route from Euston.
It will not come as any surprise that I favour utilising the desire of the British Airports Authority and British Rail to co-operate in spending several hundred millions of pounds to provide a high-speed connection between central London and Heathrow. I want to see whether we can use the potential that it offers to open up Heathrow so that it will perform its proper function, as Great Britain's number one international airport.
Heathrow is not merely central London's international airport. It has been pointed out that we have an airport in south Wales. So we do—I live about six miles from it, and it is a nice regional airport, but in no sense of the word can it be considered a competitor for Heathrow. It does not have any regular, year-round international, transatlantic or intercontinental connections but merely a modest four international destinations, served by scheduled flights on a regular basis, and another four within the United Kingdom. That is not competition for Heathrow.
People from south Wales, Bristol, Oxford, Swindon or anywhere else in south-west and central England who want to fly to Nicaragua or to Thailand have to go to Heathrow. People will always have to use Heathrow for intercontinental destinations, and that is what people who live outside central London resent most. Heathrow is regarded as the private concern of people who live in central London. The House is regarded as a club for people who occupy positions of influence in central London.
When hon. Members request that the promoters of such Bills consider the interests of six sevenths of the population who do not live in central London, we are thought to be obstructing the people of importance who live there. That is nonsense. We are the Parliament of Great Britain. The only opportunity for the vast majority of people who do not live in central London to make Bills more relevant to them is to utilise the procedures of the House, and to table amendments for consideration by the promoters which, if viable, will be added to the Bill.
I am surprised that the sponsor has not mentioned the publication of the National Economic Development Council report, which has taken place since the carry-over motion. I have a pre-publication copy here. It is called,

"On the Right Track to Heathrow Airport" and was released to the press on 10 December. It was widely referred to in the press last week. The National Economic Development Council was seeking to look after the long-term interests of Heathrow, as our most important airport—it is also, although not in freight terms, the most important international airport in western Europe. In the report, the NEDC makes it clear—the NEDC is one of those tripartite bodies of which the Government do not approve, as it brings in the unions and the employers—

Mr. Snape: They do now; it is the new image.

Mr. Morgan: Sorry, I had forgotten about the classless society. Perhaps the NEDC is coming back into favour now.
The report also makes a reference to the work of a n hon. Member who is present tonight—the famous pamphlet, "Tunnel Vision, Rail Routes to the Channel Tunnel"—so it is obviously an excellent publication.
The report referred to the development of Heathrow as being dependent on a rolling programme of improvement. Stage 1 would be the approval of the Bill tonight. Stage 2 would be the construction of a westward-facing link, which would bring the connection from Heathrow to the south Wales main line somewhere near Slough, thereby providing a link to the airport for the people who live in the catchment area of Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Swindon, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea—the population in that area is exactly the same as the population of London, about 6 million or 7 million people.
Almost everyone, except the promoters of the Bill, understands the connection between the Bill and the westward-facing link, which would be the logical next step. Therefore, I find it odd that the sponsor has so far been unable to say that the promoters have made any undertaking showing that they are willing to consider how to connect the link provided for by the Bill with the logical next step of integrating Heathrow with the national railway system. The aim of the express railway is not merely to carry passengers from Heathrow airport into London, via Paddington.

Sir John Wheeler: I offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the way in which he has managed the Bill through the House, and especially on his typical thoroughness and courtesy in responding to the inquiries and concerns of his parliamentary colleagues.
My constituents in the City of Westminster certainly warmly welcome the principle of the new rail link to central London. I have no doubt that many of my constituents will greatly benefit from the new link when it comes into operation.
However, I must say a few words about the environmental and traffic problems that will arise because of this proposal. The impact of the link on central London is just as important as its impact at Heathrow airport and the concerns about traffic problems there which other hon. Members have mentioned.
City of Westminster council is concerned about the environmental impact of the new route and its impact on traffic in the Paddington area, given the expected growth in traffic on roads in that area arising from improvements to the A40, the M40 extensions, the predicted growth in


general traffic and rail patronage to Paddington, and significant developments already planned for the locality. Extra traffic at Paddington will have a knock-on effect on congestion on roads and the public transport network throughout the centre of London, and needs to be considered and planned for.
Many of my constituents, especially those living near Paddington station, consider that the promoters have underestimated the potential usage of the railway. The promoters' current estimates—6 million passengers per annum, of whom some 47 per cent. would use cars or taxis at Paddington—are considered cautious, even given the current throughput of Heathrow airport. Moreover, they do not take into account the construction of terminal 5, which would increase usage by at least 31 per cent.
The city council is attempting to secure the development of the Paddington area—which spans the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) as well as mine—in a balanced manner. Our residential population wants the council to implement policies to establish the area as one of mixed use, while protecting and enhancing the amenity of the existing residential area, which house a considerable number of people.
The council has emphasised the importance of traffic-related issues, and the need to plan comprehensively for the long term when considering the four major planning applications relating to the immediate Paddington area. As a result, considerable changes have been made to the applications which reduce their traffic impact. For example, one developer has cut the proposed car parking from 2,500 to 431 spaces, and is proposing to pay for a wide range of highway improvements in the vicinity of the station, including direct access to it off Bishops Bridge road.
Unfortunately, the negotiations between my local authority and the promoters have suggested—at least until tonight—that there is little evidence of long-term planning for Paddington station. That is a matter of great concern to my council and to local residents. For instance, the retention of the sub-standard ramp off Bishops Bridge road, which requires cars to stop and then proceed at about 4 mph, makes the movement of traffic very difficult. If the British Rail access scheme were part of a private development, my local authority simply would not approve it.
Alternative access from the north of the station, via Bishops Bridge road, would be superior in terms of traffic, safety, parking and environment. The city council has been pressing BR to adopt a scheme providing such access for some time. The council still feels that such a scheme could be fully integrated with crossrail, including the through running of Heathrow trains. I was glad to learn tonight from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South that the crossrail development could involve that; I assure him that my authority and its residents would welcome it.
I know that my hon. Friend will convey my messages to the promoters. Let me emphasise the importance of thorough consideration and implementation of the traffic management aspects of the new route. Because of other major planning developments, the stress imposed on the

immediate area is such that the control of traffic will be a crucial issue for the residential community for many years to come.
The problem of access to the station must be resolved, and soon, so that my local authority, which has to approve the applications, has time to reassure the public, who have an interest in planning applications, as well as ensuring that their environmental and residential objectives are met. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the keen interest that he has displayed in these matters—at least until this moment.

Mr. Patrick Ground: I, too, welcome the Bill; but I find it extraordinary that, over 40 years, Heathrow has developed into a major international airport without having the benefit of a rail link. BAA plc is to be congratulated on having enabled itself to promote the Bill and also fund the new railway.
I have a constituency interest, in that I am concerned for both the continued success of Heathrow airport—which employs many of my constituents—and the relief of the traffic congestion caused by the airport. I believe that the new railway can contribute to both.
As for the quality of the rail link, the Heathrow Express will certainly compare favourably with the rail link connecting with Charles de Gaulle airport: there, it is necessary to board a bus to travel from the terminal to the station.
I hope very much that the new railway will be a success. Nevertheless, we should remember that it will provide a link only with the network to the north of the airport, and that there is a strong case for providing a link with the network to the south. I hope that the Committee will satisfy itself that the proposed works will not prejudice the provision of such a link.
The stations and tunnels that are to be built under the airport could be used—the stations certainly, and the tunnels as part—to provide that southern link, and I hope that the means will eventually be found. I also hope that the Committee will establish as far as possible that the method of construction will not preclude the provision of the southern link and that, within reason, the door will be kept open for it.
I understand from engineering consultants employed by the London borough of Hounslow that, for an additional £3 million—now—three sections of tunnel could be designed, rather wider than currently planned, so that the tunnels for a southern link could be let in later without the need for the railway to be closed while the work was being done. Letting in the tunnels could enable the northern link stations to be used for the southern link, too.
I realise that £3 million is a lot of money, and that the promoters must look to the potential customers for the financing of the development, at least at present. However, this is a modest sum compared with the £220 million being spent on the Heathrow express, and the £35 million that it would cost to shut the railway and join the tunnels with the southern link once the railway was in operation. We must keep the figures in perspective.
We do not yet know the extent to which, after its current venture, BAA plc will develop a taste for providing railway links with its airports. But whoever is in the


business of providing railways in the future will be more attracted to doing so if those modest steps are taken to keep open the possibility of a southern link.
A report by Colin Buchanan and Partners, which was commissioned by the London borough of Hounslow, shows that, in engineering, operational and environmental terms, a southern rail link to the airport is a practical possibility. A further report by Colin Buchanan and Partners for the London boroughs of Hounslow, Richmond, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton supports the practicality of an orbital rail link in south-west London. Several of my hon. Friends have also referred to the report by the National Economic Development Council, was published on 10 December, which supports those ideas in a much more general framework.
I hope that BAA plc, which has suggested that it will try to keep open as many options as possible, and which has already shown some agreement between the consultants on these matters, will continue to keep that option open. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will look carefully at the desirability of keeping open the option for a southern link and that, within reason, the money will be found for doing so because it will undoubtedly be very much more expensive to provide such as link in the future. Keeping that option open would encourage whoever is responsible for the provision of the railways to provide the further rail link which is very much needed because it would strengthen Heathrow and its surrounding environment.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I sympathise with the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). We know that the promoters introduced the Bill to try to improve the surface access problems that exist at Heathrow. Those problems existed before terminal 4 was built, and have hardly improved since. The sponsors suggest that 6 million potential passengers will use the link, thus taking a great deal of traffic off the roads between central London and Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has said that the sponsors must bear in mind the implications for terminal 5 and ensure that they get the link correct.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) is sitting quietly on the Front Bench—from his point of view, I hope that things remain that way—but may I advise him that a great deal of what needs to be done in connection with Heathrow, its surface access problem and the wider implications of the Bill is a matter for the Government, not the sponsors? One cannot expect BAA plc to fund surface access improvements between Heathrow and the Cromwell road. That is a matter for the Government, who should have an integrated transport policy for rail, road and air travel.
My hon. Friend the Minister has now turned to me and has a slight twinkle in his eye. He knows that it is impossible to talk about surface access to Heathrow, the rail link that we should have and the movement of aircraft, without thinking in terms of integration. It is no good the Government having a policy on aircraft movement, the railways and in connection with what the Civil Aviation Authority should he doing, if they do not think about the needs of terminal 5 at Heathrow. There can be no doubt

that west-facing access is vital to the people of the west country and south Wales, as is the southern link. Although building the tunnel has some technical implications, in my view that is not the responsibility of BAA plc or British Rail; it is a matter for the Government.
I was opposed to the Bill from the outset because of the effect that it will have on my constituents, although I accept the principle behind it. I still believe that this is the wrong route and that it should run directly from Southall. However, I pay tribute to the sponsors for the way in which they have listened to the criticisms about the route—some constructive, some not—from people such as myself. The sponsors were criticised at first for their lack of consultation, but the consultation process has improved tremendously during the past year or so. Many of my constituents have been able to see the proposals in model form and there has been a hot line by which they could contact the sponsors to find out exactly what was going on.
As suggested by my local authority, the route has been amended to avoid fragmenting the green belt, at a cost to the promoters of £12 million. I am also grateful that, as a result of pressure—some from myself—the route will be taken under the M4 rather than over it, as was originally suggested. The noise and environmental implications for my constituents as the route comes out of Hayes station and turns left to cross the green belt towards Heathrow were matters of great concern, but I understand that a "green wall" is to be built, which will help to reduce the noise levels experienced by most of the residents who back on to the existing main line. To some extent, the green wall will not make all that much difference to some of those who will suffer extremely badly from noise, but the sponsors have agreed to make a financial contribution towards sound insulation to try to make life that bit more bearable for those people.
The disruption to Stockley lakes is important for both ecological and fishing reasons, but it will be minimised by the well thought-out development and management plan. Assurances have been given that the greatest care will be taken to avoid any hazards when dealing with landfill.
I still believe that, in due course, consideration should be given to a different route. However, it bears repeating that the sponsors have at last—I emphasise the words "at last"—responded to the needs of my constituents and to the pressures that I have brought to bear, along with other colleagues, and have made the adjustments and modifications that are necessary to make life bearable for my constituents.
Therefore, although I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight, I also hope that, in Committee, the sponsors will take on board some of the points that have been made tonight. The most important aspect of all this is that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench should put their heads together and start thinking in terms of integration. Money must be made available to make sure that we get it right, so that the people of south Wales, and those in my home town of Bristol, can have access to Heathrow without this nonsense of passing it by, going into Paddington and having to come out again. I hope that terminal 5 will soon begin the long process of construction, starting in my local authority. We must bear in mind the needs of terminal 5, which, again, is more a matter for the Government than for the sponsors—

Mr. Jessel: Surely my hon. Friend cannot imagine that his local borough council will be expected to decide the


planning permission and that any future application for a fifth terminal will not result in a call-in, a public inquiry and a decision by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I said that the start of the planning process would begin with my local authority. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he is about the musicians in his constituency: it will be a long-term process. I am sure that the matter will be called in and decided elsewhere.
As I have said, I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading and that all the points that have been made by hon. Members will be taken into consideration by the promoters and by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I should perhaps make my speech short and say that, if the Bill satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), it satisfies me. His emollient tones bode well for the passage of the Bill. No one would criticise my hon. Friend for not exercising independent and constructive judgment on behalf of his constituents, as he always has and certainly has on this Bill, which is much the better for it.
The problem with the development of airports in this country has always been that far too little attention has been paid to the vital aspect of surface access. Lack of surface access, particularly rail access direct to passenger terminals, has caused congestion, with which we are all too familiar, and has damaged the potential development of airports. This is true of Luton, where there is no direct rail link; it has been so for a long time of Stansted; it was true until the Gatwick express was created for Gatwick; and, for far too long, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) pointed out, it has been true of Heathrow. The consequence for passengers and for those living around these airports has been the failure to exploit their economic potential and a degradation of the environment that was quite unnecessary.
This modest Bill—in financial terms, it is far from modest—will, I hope, be the precursor of further measures to put in place a fully strategic rail infrastructure for Heathrow and other key airports.
I know that my constituents have a double interest in the Bill: first, because anything that is good for Heathrow in international terms—rail access is a vital aspect of that matter—is good for them, as Heathrow is the main source of employment for my constituents, apart from central London; and, secondly, they ask whether it will improve their access to the airport. With the development of crossrail, this may be so. A station on the crossrail link from Aylesbury and Amersham at Northwood will enable them to travel at high speed through to the Paddington terminal and out to the airport.
More important, the rail link will significantly reduce the grave traffic congestion that bedevils west London, which is caused to a large extent by a lack of proper rail access to the Heathrow terminals.
My hon. Friends who argue for wider examination of the Bill's implications in Committee have logic and sense on their side. As I said, the Bill is a precursor of other measures, and we shall undoubtedly need that connection

out to the west, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) so eloquently intervened, and the connection to the south, to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston alluded. If we are fully to utilise Heathrow's potential and preserve the local environment, we need to exploit the rail connections much more than is envisaged at present.
I hope that the good experience of the Bill and the installation of this rail link will set a necessary example to policy makers in the Department of Transport. Although the sponsors of the Bill—the BAA and the British Railways Board—deserve full credit for the impetus that they have put behind it and for their readiness to modify it, nevertheless it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport to ensure that the premier gateway to this country—Heathrow airport—has the proper rail access to the east, the west and the south which it deserves. I support the Bill.

Mr. Peter Snape: The remarkable aspect of this debate has been the unanimity on not only the desirability of this project but the need to widen and to extend it to take care of the transport needs of passengers from all over the United Kingdom who wish to travel to and from the busiest international airport and the need and desire to see this stretch of railway become a integral part of the British Rail network. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, the crossrail should extend to the south, to the west and to the east.
Regrettably, the Bill does no such thing. For eminently understandable reasons, the interests of the former British Airports Authority, which is now BAA plc, lie in maximising the number of passengers who use its airports. Quite fairly, it does not see it as its role or responsibility to do more than that. That illustrates the weakness of the Government's transport philosophy—I would not deign to call it a policy, because a policy implies that something exists—which is that the market will provide these things and that it is the best judge of where resources are necessary and when and how they will be financed and implemented.
I was fascinated to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—I usually am fascinated to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speeches—who represents the intellectual wing of the Conservative party. He came out tonight as a closet integrator and demanded an integrated transport system. I very much doubt whether it will save him from the wrath of the electors at the next general election. I have a feeling that they will prefer the fervour of the real thing—socialist transport policy—to the fervour of the convert. His conversion, albeit late, is nevertheless welcome.
To a certain extent, we have heard a repeat of some of the arguments that were advanced in the debate on the carry-over motion a month ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), with his wit, humour and customary brevity, set out the needs and desires of passengers from Cardiff, the west and south west for a west-facing connection into Heathrow airport, as did


my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke in the debate on that motion but is unable to be present this evening.
The reaction of British Rail's management to the proposals put forward by my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members was interesting. I have a letter from the "Director, Projects" of the British Railways Board to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. On the specific question of the west-facing link, the director, Mr. David R. V. Beynon, said:
You mentioned links for traffic from South Wales. I am sure you will appreciate that any additional stops on the InterCity services will increase the journey times for the vast majority of passengers who will continue to want to travel to or via Central London.
Paddington is not in central London—a point which should not escape us in these debates and which was made by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) when he spoke of the disturbance that 6 million passengers will cause the city of Westminster and in and around Paddington station.
The letter continued:
An interchange at Paddington will mean that every InterCity train connects with a Heathrow Express service which will be waiting in the platform and the passengers can change platforms without having to go up and down steps. South Wales will thus have better access to Heathrow than other regions, passengers from which will have to cross London via the Underground.
There is nothing like BR management for stating the obvious, but it does not appear to be particularly convenient to pass the eventual destination of a good many passengers and to go on to the centre of London, only for those passengers to have to reverse 10 miles along the route over which they have already travelled.
The letter concluded:
I hope this helps to allay any concerns you may have had over the effect of the Bill on services from South Wales.
It does not allay any concerns. Indeed, when one reads such gobbledegook from rail management, it arouses even more concern among those of us who are worried about the future of that once great industry.
The same gentleman wrote to me about the same topic because, like my hon. Friends, I raised the issue of a west-facing link. In his letter, Mr. Beynon said:
Thirdly, with regard to a west facing link, it would be wrong to say that BAA and BR do not want it. We have several ideas about how this could be achieved which would not be precluded by the initial link. Again as you pointed out, through services to the west cannot take place until the Western Region Main Line is fully electrified.
As far as I am aware, I did not point that out, but no matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West reminded us during the debate on the carry-over motion, the Minister of State said that electrification as far as Reading of an east-west crossrail service was an integral part of the scheme, and we are grateful for that. British Rail's fears about providing a west-facing link without electrification had been eased, if not nullified, by the Minister's statement a month or so ago.
Hon. Members can see no reason why such a west-facing link cannot be provided. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Welsh constituencies, some of whom have spoken on the Bill, will continue to advocate the provision both during and after the Committee stage. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider the depth of feeling on both sides of the House about this scheme.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Unfortunately, I was not here for the earlier part of the

debate. My hon. Friend may recall that, in the debate on the carry-over motion, the issue of access from south Wales was emphasised and we pointed out the considerable potential for bringing passengers from Birmingham and the north-west of England into Heathrow via Reading.

Mr. Snape: I said earlier that an estimated 5 million passengers were carried by the existing coach links from Woking and Reading to Heathrow airport. I put that point to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who sponsors the Bill, to show the additional revenue that the transfer of those passengers from the coach link to a through rail service would provide for the Bill's promoters, including British Rail. I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman also emphasise the necessity of getting those 5 million passengers who currently come by car or coach off the west London roads, where they are an absolute menace?

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman steals my next point, but I do not complain about that. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington lucidly advocated the case for an integrated transport system. The problem is that, where such a provision is needed, it is rarely made. Despite the words of the new Secretary of State for Transport on taking office, road and rail schemes are not judged by using the same criteria. The Government intend to widen the M25—unaccountably, in the view of many of us—which will merely ensure even more traffic jams and four congested lanes—

Mr. Dicks: An even bigger car park.

Mr. Snape: —an even bigger car park, as the hon. Gentleman says. Where extra demand exists for the road network, extra provision is made by extending it; where extra rail demand exists, either it is not met or Ministers come out with the advice to British Rail that it should use—in the immortal phrase uttered by the Department of Transport—the "mechanism of the market" to damp down demand. For those of us who speak a more lucid form of English, that means that fares are increased, passengers are forced off the trains on to the road and another lane is built on the M25 to cater for the extra demand generated by using that beloved "mechanism of the market", to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington takes violent and welcome exception.

Mr. Dicks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He cannot call for an integrated transport system and also embrace the mechanism of the market, intellectual though he might be. I think that he will accept that there is a conflict.

Mr. Dicks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head again.
I had better not tempt him further.
We have also debated the issue of an exit to the south and the former Southern railway. If its proposals were accepted in Committee, the Hounslow petition would require the Bill's promoters to provide three partial step-plate junctions in the proposed tunnel for the express rail system beneath Heathrow to enable the tunnel to be joined to a link between Heathrow and the Southern railway west of Feltham. The estimate is that the cost of


those three step-plate junctions, if they were made during the express rail construction, would be about £3 million. To build the junctions breaking into the tunnel after construction of the express link would involve estimated expenditure of £21 million.
Of course, construction after the rail link was open would mean that the Heathrow express service would need to be stopped for about a year, with a loss in fare revenue alone of £35 million. It appears that, unless provision is made for that southern link to be provided at the outset, there will be little opportunity—other than a very expensive one—for it to be constructed once the express link is completed and gets under way.
I commend to the Under-Secretary the Colin Buchanan report "Additional Public Transport in South West London", figure 3.3 of which shows the loop connection to the former Southern railway which would enable eight trains an hour to serve the Heathrow express rail stations from the south without any restriction on capacity from Paddington. The eight trains an hour from the south would serve the London boroughs of Richmond, Hounslow, Sutton, Merton and Kingston upon Thames in an orbital service from Croydon to Heathrow, via Streatham, Wimbledon, Kingston, Twickenham and Feltham. We and, perhaps more important, the local authorities concerned believe that that service would make an important contribution to resolving the massive problems of road traffic congestion in south-west London. The Heathrow-Croydon orbital service would also provide a rail service between Heathrow and Gatwick.
I commend to Ministers the Labour party's transport proposals for the channel tunnel scheme—where we propose a rail ring around London—of which these proposals would form an integral part. Again, there is nothing particularly revolutionary in such proposals. They have long been accepted for the road network. Indeed, a rail ring is exactly what the French are providing around Paris to cater for the extra traffic that the channel tunnel links will generate. Of course, the French plan these matters; they are not obsessed with road building as the Department of Transport has been throughout its long and largely shallow history.
The scheme that I outlined will cost less than £200 million, according to Colin Buchanan's study—the price of a few hundred yards of road in docklands. We are talking not about docklands but about a scheme that could benefit not only passengers to and from Heathrow but rail passengers throughout the United Kingdom and, once the channel tunnel opens, rail passengers throughout western Europe.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will take those points on board and will give an undertaking that, in Committee, the proposals will be studied seriously. If they are not carried out at the first construction stages, they are unlikely to be carried out at all. The Labour party fears a re-run of the docklands light railway saga, when a palpably inadequate system was installed and now has to be improved, at enormous public expense. For goodness' sake, let us get it right on this occasion.
History does not fill us full of enthusiasm or optimism on these matters. We do not judge road and rail schemes by similar criteria. At present, there are hundreds of road schemes that, under the existing criteria used by the

Department, can be justified, but which, as all of us in the House know, will never be built because of their environmental impact and because of the uproar that they would cause among the public. Yet, at the same time, we have rail schemes that, under the existing criteria laid down by the Department, could be built, but which cannot be justified. Something is wrong; that something is a lack of transport policy.
There has been some unanimity in the debate. Hon. Members of all parties acknowledge that transport policy is missing from the Bill. We must get it right this time. If the Under-Secretary and the Minister for Public Transport get it wrong, it will be an expensive mistake for which the rest of us, in due course, will have to pay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate all the hon. Members who have taken part in this good debate, although the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spread the debate somewhat and went into his usual overdrive about policy. He made the commitment that he would spend £200 million, which will no doubt be wholly rejected by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Snape: I want to make a point that will be important for the Minister's education when he returns to opposition, as he will after the next election. The proposals have been costed and approved, and they are part of our national transport policy, which is supported by the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks); it is called planning.

Mr. McLoughlin: That is an interesting diversion, but I will not go down that route. I have never been in opposition in this place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman stays in his place for a considerable time to come.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the able way in which he raised the matter, which has stood around and been talked about for so long. He did a remarkable job and he carried most of the House with him when he dealt with each point.
The Government fully support the principle of the Bill. The prospect of an express rail link between London and Europe's busiest airport is exciting, because it will help to ensure that Heathrow continues to be a major interchange for world and for European travel. The fact that this is essentially a private sector project, with the British Airports Authority putting up 80 per cent. of the cost and bearing the majority of the risk, shows that the private sector can play a significant role in the new transport project.
Most hon. Members are in favour of the principle of the link, but there are some reservations which have been raised today. I am sure that the objections raised by the various petitioners will be examined fully in Committee. I understand that the promoters are in discussion with many of the petitioners to see whether their concerns can be dealt with satisfactorily before then.
Concern has been expressed on two points. The first was the environmental impact of the scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) raised. The second point was the possibility of the provision of a west-facing link being included in the Bill. Officials at the Department are currently researching


the setting of standards for noise levels for new railways in line with those that are already applied to new highways. British Rail is responsible for making arrangements for noise insulation and is currently engaged in research aimed at reducing noise and vibration from trains.
Hon. Members have referred to the noise from the intensified use of existing railways. I hope that we can announce a decision on compensation early next year. Both the BAA and British Rail are committed to ensuring that the environmental consequences of the proposed link are minimised and that the building and operation of the link are as unobtrusive as possible. I have no doubt that their detailed plans will be scrutinised carefully in Committee.
The west-facing link has many proponents and the suggestion for such a link was echoed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). He referred to the report of the National Economic Development Office entitled "On the Right Track to Heathrow Airport". It argued the need to connect Heathrow more effectively with west and south Wales. That is not the only proposal to enhance the service. There is also a proposal for a link to the southern region track into Waterloo and there are calls for the crossrail train to serve Heathrow to provide a direct service to Essex.
However, all the potential developments will come to nothing if the basic priority of an express Heathrow-Paddington link is not achieved. The Bill will provide the foundations on which other new services can be built. The important issue is to get the Bill through, in the knowledge that nothing in it precludes further development in the longer term. I know that the promoters are discussing with Hounslow borough council ways in which the potential for a southern region link can be preserved. I am sure that an appropriate solution can be found.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister has referred to the foundations. It seems strange to build the foundation before we decide how to construct the building. Does not the Minister intend to respond to hon. Members of all parties who have said that the Bill proposes a piecemeal development, which does not consider the eventual shape of the railways? In Wales, we are very concerned about that. The burgeoning economy of south Wales must be served by what is our main airport. Has that been taken into account? The Minister has talked about foundations, but he has not reacted to the debate.

Mr. McLoughlin: I thought that I had made the point clear. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the fact that the economy of south Wales has boomed during the past few years under this Government is to be welcomed. However, that has brought fresh problems and requires further infrastructure. My point was that the Bill will not preclude further development. Without the line, there will be no opportunity for such development. The Committee will be able to look at the whole question and it can make recommendations. I have no doubt that there will be consultations at that time. If the BAA can come to an accommodation with other groups or if fresh developments are merited, there may be changes. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that I did not make that point. I think that he was engaged in a conversation when I referred directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, so he may not have heard me make that point.
The prospects for the crossrail service to Heathrow will be examined, but the immediate priority is for a high-quality link to London, which is what the Bill provides and what the Government support. I hope that the Bill can move through its remaining stages successfully and as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am inclined to support the Bill. It seems plain common sense that there should be a fast rail connection between central London and Heathrow. The present rail link by underground, the Piccadilly line, is hopelessly inadequate. It stops 15 or 20 times between central London and Heathrow; it stops every two or three minutes. Contrasted with that, a 16-minute service from Paddington to Heathrow will be excellent.
One factor which appeals to me is the relief it would bring to traffic on the A4, the Cromwell road in west London. That is one of London's main arterial roads not only to the western side of London, but beyond, and to the whole of the west and south-west of England and to Wales. That is one of London's most main roads.
When I intervened earlier, I did not have the figures to hand of the estimated impact on that traffic of constructing the Paddington-to-Heathrow rail link. Since then, I have been informed that it would affect the number of vehicles on Cromwell road by some 3,000 per day—about 2,000 taxis and about 1,000 cars per day. That is not a vast proportion, but it is not insignificant, and it would benefit all those people who live in west and south-west London and beyond, including my constituents who have to get in and out of London along the Cromwell road.
The one thing that would stand in the way of my support for the Bill is the thought that it was linked in any way to the concept of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, as was half-implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I hope that he will not mind if I say that I regard him as one of my best friends. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) replies to the debate, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he can assure me categorically that there is no such plan and that the proposal to construct the railway from Paddington to Heathrow stands on its own. I would require that undertaking from him before deciding whether to support the Bill.
I warmly support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) said about the need for a subsequent rail link into Heathrow from Feltham, Twickenham, Richmond and beyond. As the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), said, that is supported by five south London boroughs, and I believe that it would be warmly welcomed. I hope that we can have a clear assurance that what is decided by the House tonight and what is anticipated in Committee would not: stand in the way of that.
I have the utmost sympathy with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who said that he did not want people from south Wales going to Heathrow to have to travel into Paddington and then go back to Heathrow. We can all sympathise with that. I went to Cardiff by rail last month. I live about five or six miles from Heathrow airport. I drove my car to Reading and took an excellent


fast train from Reading to Cardiff. It is a first-class service. I can understand how people from south Wales would feel about having to go all the way into Paddington and back again. However, a much larger number of people want to travel from Cardiff, Bristol, Reading or Swindon all the way into London. There are more people from those places who would want to travel into London than would want to go to Heathrow on any one day. A stop at Hayes and Harlington would hold up all those people.
I stand to be corrected by a railway expert, but I believe that a one-minute stop, to which is added the time for slowing down and speeding up before and after Hayes and Harlington, would add between eight and 12 minutes to the journey. The same would apply coming out from Paddington to Heathrow. It would add about four minutes to the 16-minute journey, making it 20 minutes. That would affect a much larger number of people wanting to travel from Paddington to Heathrow. One would want to see the figures for the number of people travelling from Cardiff and the other places I have mentioned to Heathrow each day so as to weigh up the benefit to them against the loss in time to what I believe would be a larger number of people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is not over-enthusiastic about a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Will he accept that, at present, much of the pressure on Heathrow is caused by the large number of people who arrive on flights from other parts of England and Wales to change at Heathrow? If we had the western link, many of those people would find it easier to come by rail to Heathrow, and there would not be as much pressure for the extra terminal.

Mr. Jessel: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if the train were to stop at Hayes and Harlington for a change to Heathrow, it would already be slowing down and it would only take about another five or seven minutes to get to Paddington. The benefit to the people he described is marginal, and it would have to be set against a disbenefit to a large number of people caused by a stop in both directions at Hayes and Harlington station. I suspect that, if one were to see the figures for the number of people involved in all those categories, the loss in terms of human time would be greater than the gain.
I hope that that point will not be allowed to stand in the way of the progress of what I believe would be a generally beneficial Bill. Many of those from Cardiff and other parts of the country can now fly direct to certain continental destinations, and that will increase as time goes on. It could be that the proportion of those wanting to travel from places such as Cardiff and Bristol to Heathrow will not increase as fast as the number who want to travel from central London to Heathrow, because of the increasing number of flights from provincial airports to continental destinations.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. As long as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can give me the assurances I seek, I shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Thorne: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) have the leave of the House to speak again? It seems that he does.

Mr. Thorne: This has been an extremely helpful and constructive debate. Hon. Members have made constructive points and I am sure that the promoters will have listened carefully to everything that has been said. I reiterate that it is their wish to make a profitable and successful enterprise of this project and anything that can be done to enhance its output will be considered seriously.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talked about the present proposal having been planned in isolation. It was the result of a successful competitive bid by BAA and British Rail from which the scheme has evolved. It was one of a number considered at the time and, therefore, was not part of an overall strategy. We should make that point clear. I welcome what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and other hon. Members said about this being a step forward, but it would be wrong to blame the sponsors for not incorporating it in a larger network.
Of course, Heathrow is a national airport. This is not a local matter and I am sure that BAA in particular would not dream of suggesting otherwise. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will be pleased to hear that the NEDC report to which he referred has been welcomed by Sir John Egan, the chief executive of BAA. That and what it implies augurs well for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) rightly voiced the fears of his constituents about additional traffic in their area. I fully take on board what he said. The promoters wish to do everything possible to mitigate that. The matter is not entirely in their hands. As my hon. Friend knows, several other bodies are involved—including English Heritage—and their permission must be obtained on certain aspects. However, I am sure that the crossrail link will be helpful to his constituents. We can expect that a proper and detailed plan for Paddington station will be incorporated in the near future.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) made a strong case for keeping open the option of a link to the south. I gave an assurance earlier that the matter was under active consideration. Although the instruction to the Committee was not accepted by Mr. Speaker, I am sure that a future link to the south will be considered carefully by both the Opposed Private Bill Committee and the House.
My hon. and learned Friend said that it would be enormously more expensive to incorporate the work on a southern link at a later date. As he said, the work could be done at a tenth of the price in the planning for this link. That will most certainly be taken into account. But cost is relevant because the railway must be self-financing. It would be wrong to give a commitment that, regardless of cost, the items referred to will be incorporated. That would have an adverse effect on the overall cost to the passengers who will use the line. It would discourage people from using it, which in turn would lead to more congestion on the roads. Such matters must be delicately balanced and we must watch them carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) made a helpful speech. He welcomed the project and gave it his good wishes. He made an important point when he congratulated the promoters on listening so carefully to what people were saying. That was certainly my experience, too. They went out of their way to listen to everyone involved in the Bill. They have always listened and they are still open to suggestions. If every sponsor of a private Bill listened as carefully as they have done, private Bills would go through the House more speedily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that it was necessary to incorporate the railway as part of a larger network. He congratulated the promoters on bringing forward the scheme at this stage and I share his view.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned the need for strategic planning and a link from the west. We all hope that demand will show that there is a need for a service from the west. It might be helpful to mention the origin of the people who use Heathrow. According to a survey, central London provides just over 32 per cent. of Heathrow passengers. Outer London provides just over 19 per cent., the south-east provides just over 31 per cent., the south-west provides almost six per cent., East Anglia provides over 2·5 per cent., the midlands provide almost 4·5 per cent., the north provides 2·5 per cent., Scotland provides 0·5 per cent. and Wales provides just over 1·5 per cent. Those figures show that the plan to initiate the project as quickly as possible is the natural and most sensible course of action.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East quoted figures for people who come to Heathrow by coach. If those figures accurately indicate that demand will grow, I

am sure that we shall soon have a connection to the west. It should come soon after the electrification of that part of the railway network. We can look forward to that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for stepped junctions. That must be fully and properly investigated. Clearly, one would not want the whole project to be closed for 12 months purely and simply because stepped junctions had not been provided at a reasonable cost earlier in the project. That will be carefully considered.
The Minister made a helpful speech. He knows as much as I do about the project. I am sure that the Government are as anxious as everyone else that the proposals be quickly and speedily introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) asked for an assurance that the project is not dependent on the construction of a fifth terminal at Healthrow. I am happy to give him that assurance. There is no requirement to build a fifth terminal to make the project viable. The project can stand on its own feet on the basis of existing demand.
I have also been asked separately by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to respond to a request that he previously made for a stop at Acton, for the benefit of Heathrow staff, many of whom live in his constituency. I looked into the matter some months ago and was disappointed to find that the possibility of using alternative rolling stock to convey staff to and from Acton and Heathrow at the changeover duty period could not be implemented because the available rolling stock did riot comply with modern safety standards for carriages going in tunnels. Because of that unfortunate fact, that stop cannot be implemented now. I hope that such a facility will be provided in future. It certainly cannot be provided when, as I hope, the project is opened for business in 1995.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred—

(a) in connection with the formation of any company formed with a view to, or for any purpose of, the carrying on of activities designated under the Act or with the operation of any such company wholly owned by the Secretary of State; or
(b) in assuming responsibility for any liabilities (whether of such a company or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated or liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities.—[Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is important that we do not let this motion go through on the nod. The whole history of the House of Commons is based on the demands of commoners to have the right to some control over expenditure. It is sad that, in recent years, hon. Members have tended to take less and less interest in money resolutions, and how money is spent.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Not me.

Mr. Bennett: I fully acknowledge that my hon. Friend has made a habit of speaking on money resolutions, and I certainly commend him for it.
I must apologise to the House for not having been here to listen to the earlier debate. I was serving on the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. It is possible that some of the questions on expenditure that I wish to ask were answered previously, and tomorrow I shall read with interest the debate in Hansard, but I hope that the Minister will bear with me and at least attempt to answer some of my questions.
How much are the Government including in their estimates to cover nuclear safety? In particular, what will they include to cover compensation for workers who suffer from radiation? How much extra will be spent on the national health service for treating those patients? Will the Government make available to the general public the information about what is happening to people who work in the new establishment?
Recently, I tabled questions about the levels of radiation experienced by workers at naval dockyards. I am pleased that at long last the Government have adopted a more open approach to such matters and have started to publish the levels of radiation. That helps to alleviate some fears, although when one or two workers see the levels of dosage from which they have suffered and the implications that that has, particularly now that the international standards—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I did not quite catch where the hon. Gentleman was asking us to look at levels of radiation.

Mr. Bennett: It is for the workers who will be employed in the manufacture of the warheads. I was drawing a

comparison with the problems suffered in the naval dockyards. I said that I was pleased that the Government were starting to publish that information.
After having discovered that some workers in the dockyard who were directly employed by the Government were getting the figures, I was alarmed to discover when I asked about workers employed by Rolls-Royce—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how these matters relate to the money resolution.

Mr. Bennett: I started by asking how much this would cost. I was describing what happened in the naval dockyards, where the Government were prepared to give information for their workers, but refused to do so for Rolls-Royce workers.
The measure will privatise the work being done at Aldermaston. I want to be sure that when we question the Government about the possible levels of radiation suffered by people working on the warheads, we shall not be told that that information, and the costs associated with it, cannot be made available to us.
Shall we be given the full costs of the Trident programme and all the implications involved in that development? We are constantly given the figure—

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Bill? If not, I have a spare copy with me that he could have. I ask because the issues that he is raising have nothing to do with the Bill. As he was not present for the Second Reading debate, when we had an informed discussion, I thought that he might not have read the measure, and I hoped that he would make his remarks relevant to it.

Mr. Bennett: I was making pertinent comments about the costs involved. I appreciate the Government's enthusiasm for covering up the sort of issues that I am raising. I should have thought that the Government would be prepared to put forward all the details about the costs involved in those issues. The Government should be open in these matters. After all, the Minister moved the resolution formally, as though he did not think there was a need to talk about costs and similar issues. Had he been prepared to make an opening speech which included all the cost details, there might have been no need for me to raise these issues. I shall listen with interest to his reply to the debate.
I am anxious to know when the House will be given the full costings of the Trident programme. We are still being given round figures, but I gather that there are major problems with that programme. The Government leave out crucial bits of information from the figures that they give. In the entire nuclear area, we have not been given proper costings. When we raise issues in due course, we discover that whole areas of expenditure have not been taken into account. If the Minister assures me that all the costs, including the implied costs, of the measure have been taken into account, I shall not pursue the matter further.
It is interesting, as an example, to consider what happened with the development of Polaris submarines. We were given the costs of the development, but were not told how much it would cost to decommission the nuclear reactors, mainly because the Government did not know how the work would be done. I want an assurance that, in passing tonight's measure, we are not committing


ourselves to hidden costs about dismantling, decommissioning and so on at the end of the lifetime of the facilities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the motion or the substance of the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: I was using Polaris as an example of the way in which the Government give the supposed costs, and later we find substantial items of cost left out. It seems reasonable for me to ask, following what happened with Polaris—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would have helped had the hon. Member been present for the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Bennett: As I explained, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was in Committee. It would have been impossible for me to be up there and down here at the same time, especially as I was responsible for moving amendments in Committee. I suggest that it is reasonable, therefore, for me to put questions to the Minister now.
I was saying in passing that the Government had not provided the costs of decommissioning Polaris submarines. I want to make sure that we know the full costs, including what will be involved in decommissioning, of the facilities which are the subject of the Bill. Will the Government bear the costs, or will they be borne by those running the facility? These are important questions because considerable problems arise when decommissioning facilities of this type. It is not something one can do easily, but will have a cost well into the future. Therefore, all that I am asking the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was in the Chair for most of the debate on Second Reading when the Minister described the Bill's purpose and other hon. Members commented on it. The Bill does not seem to contain anything related to decommissioning of any kind.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are making the point that I am trying to establish. A full account of the costs of those measures must be given to the House. The Government say that they are transferring something from a public to a private provision, which will create a problem in the future when we have to clear up the mess. As long as it was a public provision, we should have been told what those costs were in the money resolution, but now the position is changing and the matter ceases to be a Government provision and becomes a half-private one. I suspect that the private undertaking will make profits out of the proposal and the taxpayer will be left with the cost of clearing up the mess.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, believe that anyone involved in any sort of nuclear activity will not face future costs, I would concede that I was making a false point. But I suggest that it is a worry because there will be future costs. I want an assurance from the Minister that he will tell the House the cost to the taxpayer of clearing up those facilities. The sooner we can get rid of such facilities and stop needing to use them the better, but they will then have to be cleared up, which will involve expenditure. The private contractor will no longer make profits out of the facility, so will be reluctant to pay for the clearing-up costs. I am simply asking what the cost will be of

decommissioning the facility. If the Minister will tell me, I shall happily give way; if not, I shall wait until the end of the debate to see whether he will give us those answers.
During the past 20 years there has been a major nuclear programme in this country in both civil and military facilities, and the House of Commons has not been given the real cost of that programme—that is the problem. Every time one asks for answers to those questions, Ministers want to keep quiet. They do not want to talk about things that are either military secrets or something that they want to hide away. I simply want the Minister to give a clear undertaking now on what the full costs of the measure are likely to be, what the costs will be of making the district safe and the medical costs for people who work there, particularly as that plant has not had the best of records in terms of its design and the way in which it is being run. It has left people with considerable worries. I shall now listen with considerable interest to what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I heard only the two winding-up speeches because I was also in Committee from 4.15 pm. I was in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, and the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which I am a member. That shows the number of activities that we have to undertake in the House if we are to carry out our job. It also shows that the notion that we can all break off at 5 pm and go home for tea is ludicrous. Today has demonstrated the absurdity of that notion, because we have much to deal with.
There are two paragraphs to the money resolution. In paragraph (a) we are about to authorise the expenditure by the Secretary of State for the formation of a company to carry out the designated activities in the Bill. That seems fair enough, covering as it does the cost of share issues, registration at Companies House, and so on. I suspect that it would involve a relatively small sum of money—but no doubt the Minister will illuminate that aspect when he replies. However, the resolution also authorises the Secretary of State to pay for the operation of any such company, which is rather different. The authority to finance the operation of a company carrying out designated activities could involve a large sum of money.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill refers to designated activities as follows:
The activities that may be designated under subsection (1) above are any activities connected with the development, production or maintenance of nuclear devices or with research into such devices or their effects; and the premises that may be so designated are those which, when this Act comes into force, form part of the undertaking carried on by the Secretary of State and known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment.
In other words, the operation of that establishment will be authorised by the money resolution. We should like to know what sort of annual sum the Secretary of State has in mind.
If the activities are undertaken by a private company, as presumably will be the case, will that company's returns be included as part of the annual defence estimates? Clearly its work will be connected with the Ministry of Defence, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is part of that establishment. It will be interesting to know whether right hon. and hon. Members will have to look up a private company's annual return to obtain figures of defence expenditure.
Will the company be one stage removed from Parliament, or will right hon. and hon. Members, by tabling parliamentary questions, be able to obtain information about it? Or will the Minister say, "That matter is for the company"? That ruse is often used by the Government. Under the resolution, the Secretary of State will be able to form a company, draw moneys to do that, and then finance its whole operation. It is therefore important that we receive from the Minister an assurance that financial or other questions about the company asked in Parliament will be answerable by the Minister, and that he will not shield himself behind the company's separateness.
The second paragraph of the resolution gives the Secretary of State responsibility
for any liabilities (whether of such a company"—
that is, a company formed by the Secretary of State—
or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated".
Under clause 1(2), the Secretary of State is given an open cheque in assuming responsibilities for the company in operation, and for any liabilities arising, and for any other company that is or has been a contractor. That is a wide range of potential liabilities.
The trade union brief on the Bill includes details of Government-owned, contractor-operated arrangements in the United States. It states:
Thus, at the Rocky Flats site near Denver, one of the three main US nuclear weapons facilities, 62 lbs of plutonium have been discovered in the air ducts of the plant, which has had to be shut down. We have provided a detailed dossier of evidence to the Defence Committee on the situation in the United States. At the very least, the Government should conduct a full and open study of the US experience before proceeding further.
I do not accept that Government control over a private contractor is as great as Government control over a directly operated Government Department. Therefore, safety risks could increase. Does the resolution mean that the Secretary of State can assume liability when a company is at fault in what everybody accepts is a potentially extremely hazardous process? That seems to be the implication of the money resolution.
Suppose, in this wonderful world of enterprise culture from which the Minister is attempting to persuade the House that we shall benefit a company—I suspect that this is what the resolution is about—tenders for some work at a reduced cost which it cannot then carry out because it has made a miscalculation, which happens all the time, and it goes into liquidation. Is the Secretary of State guaranteeing to those companies which tender for work that he can bail them out of any designated activity? That is important because it warps the whole tendering procedure. A company will know that it has a guarantee, provided by the Government through the resolution. Safety is an important aspect.
Another point made in the excellent brief provided by a combination of trade unions is that safety is prejudiced where it is divided between contractors and the Ministry of Defence. That is obviously the case because countermanding instructions, different standards and similar sets of circumstances can create the potential for greater hazard. At the end of the day, it looks as though the taxpayer, through the Secretary of State, will be picking up the bill.
As it is clear that the designated activities which the money resolution specifically covers are important, it is pretty poor—I doubt whether this was mentioned in the previous debate—that the wide power of designation accorded to the Secretary of State under clause 1 is given by a negative procedure order. We are talking about an inherently hazardous procedure which produces weapons that can exterminate millions of people and the financing of those designated activities should be by means of an affirmative instrument rather than a negative procedure instrument.
The Minister was once a Whip and he has sat for many hours listening to and taking part in debates about the amount of time allocated to business in the House. That is why I started by talking about those people who think that the House of Commons can shut up and go home for tea at 5 o'clock because it is more comfortable and cosy that way. We do not have enough time to debate all the things that we should in the House. Affirmative resolutions should be the preferred system so that there is a requirement for a resolution of the House before authority is given to the Secretary of State, particularly on an important matter such as this.
Clause 3(2) states:
The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision of the Schedule to this Act; but this power shall not be exercised so as to extend the application of any privilege or immunity which is for the time being provided for by that Schedule.
I welcome that important reservation. Paragraph 9(2) of the schedule states:
The power of the Secretary of State under section 48(4) of that Act (Crown exemptions) shall include power, exercisable in the interests of the safety of the State, to provide for exemption, in relation to designated premises or activities carried on by a contractor at such premises, from all or any of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of Part I of that Act.
That refers to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
We are discussing a money resolution that gives the Secretary of State power to meet all the costs of any contracting companies operating under the designation procedure. If the Secretary of State—we should like to know his reasons—removes the relevant section of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and problems such as explosions or injuries arise, will the increased costs be guaranteed to the companies if they arise out of action under the schedule and come under the category of
the interests of the safety of the State",
whatever that means?
This is an all-embracing resolution. I shall not quibble with the end of paragraph (b), which deals with 
liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities.
That is welcome. There is no reason why people should suffer because of the Government's ideological commitment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked about the pensions which the Government will provide. I take it that this part of the financial resolution will cover pensions, but the Minister was evasive about whether new employees would have the same rights. He said that they had the right to enter a pension scheme, but I should like a little more detail.
If we carry out, as I hope we will, the terms of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, clause 6


of which obliges us to get rid of nuclear weapons—the change in circumstances in eastern Europe means that the Government can no longer point to the red menace in the east as the reason for purchasing Trident and for the deployment of Polaris, which is not deployed anyway because it is defective—does the last part of the resolution provide for a change from the designated operations and activities listed in the resolution to allow the Secretary of State to start on the momentous expenditure involved in changing from weapons of mass extermination and war to peaceful purposes? If the answer is yes, this will be one of the best financial resolutions that we have ever passed. If not, and if it is only about more warheads and more potential death and destruction, we should have to look at it very critically indeed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): For many years I wondered when I would be on the receiving end of a speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on a money resolution. I have listened to him for many hours late at night wishing that his speeches would come to an end. So tonight is a special occasion and I am delighted to see him in his place.
I felt that the debate on the money resolution went rather wide. We had a wide-ranging debate on Second Reading on the principle of the Bill and on its details. It is important that, in my reply, I am relevant to the money resolution, which refers to the narrow aims of the Bill to transfer the work force at the atomic weapons establishment from the civil service into a separate company, which will be taken over by the contractor, and will then be the employer.
The money resolution authorises the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of certain expenses which might be incurred by the Secretary of State, in connection with the introduction of contractor operation at the atomic weapons establishment. Those expenses include the costs involved in forming the company to which I referred, which will act as the employer of all AWE staff, and in operating the company until it is transferred to the ownership of the contractor who will operate the establishment.
I cannot give a precise forecast of the costs at this stage, but I can say with complete confidence that they will be small. The company will have no assets other than its staff and will be similar to the employing companies set up in 1987 at the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. In that case, the cost of setting up the employing companies was just over £50,000 each. However, almost all of that was subsequently recovered.
The resolution also authorises payment of expenses that might arise if the Secretary of State takes back responsibility for the employing company after it has been transferred to a contractor. There are two situations in which that might arise. First, should the operating contract at AWE change hands at some time in the future, the staff and therefore the employing company would have to be transferred to the new contractor. In that event, it is possible that the company would be taken back by the Secretary of State for a brief period, before being acquired by the new contractor. However, it is unlikely that that would involve significant costs to the Secretary of State.
Also, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State might wish to take back control of AWE, and thus of the employing company, in an emergency. The Secretary of State would then be responsible for the liabilities of the company—for example, the salaries of the AWE work force. I must stress that we do not consider it likely that such an eventuality would occur, but it is prudent to make provision just in case.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will be the position of the company if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested, the demand for warheads for Trident suddenly ceased? Is there any requirement in the money resolution for compensation to the contractor, or does the contractor stand at risk?

Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that at the end of my remarks. The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned one or two technical matters about the company. I should like to consider what he said and write to him, as I think that that would be the best way to give him the correct answer, and I should like to do so.
The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what we would do if we decided not to have a nuclear deterrent. The Government feel that the best security for our country is to retain a nuclear deterrent. Trident is an important part of that, and the AWE is an essential ingredient of Trident.
I had been led to believe—I was surprised by it—by the speech of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition also, for some reason, latterly believe in a nuclear deterrent. I know that the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Denton and Reddish are loyal members of the Labour party. In Committee it would be interesting to know of their views on this matter, because it is one of the aspects that we shall concentrate on. Clearly, if the Opposition have any doubt about the nuclear deterrent, they ought to tell the several thousand employees at AWE that their jobs are truly at risk. In that case, there would be a considerable cost to the nation.

Mr. Cryer: This is why I raised the possibility of using people's skills for peaceful purposes. I believe that the Minister really has a soft spot for the 139 non-nuclear nations that signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Surely the Government cannot deny the possibility that, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, there may be a need to keep the jobs concerned, because the world rejects the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the Minister has a soft spot for the rules of order governing a money resolution.

Mr. Carlisle: I certainly have—and I also have an extremely strong spot for the continued use of nuclear deterrence in an uncertain world.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that normal commercial prudence should take into account the possibility that we shall not need those deterrents? I should have thought that the Minister would welcome such a state of affairs, however it is achieved. He should therefore be able to tell us what would be the cost of changing the contract in regard to the establishment if we no longer needed to make the nuclear warheads. Although the Minister would still want a nuclear deterrent, I suggest


that there are other ways of providing it than Trident, which may well prove too costly even for the present Government.

Mr. Carlisle: That, too, is rather outside the scope of the Bill. I can only say that we believe in the nuclear deterrent: we feel that, in an uncertain world, it is a wise defence. It is interesting to note the divergence in defence policy in the Labour party; we shall have to watch that.
We predict that the sum required to support the Bill will not be large. I therefore urge the House to support the resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred—

(a) in connection with the formation of any company formed with a view to, or for any purpose of, the carrying on of activities designated under the Act or with the operation of any such company wholly owned by the Secretary of State; or
(b) in assuming responsibility for any liabilities (whether of such a company or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated or liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities.

European Community (Research and Development)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I beg to move.
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important programme, which has several unusual features. The Government certainly recognise its importance to the scientific community of the United Kingdom, and this is a valuable opportunity for me to inform the House of the progress that is now being made in negotiations in Brussels.
First, let me explain the current state of the programme. I hope that the House will be indulgent if I venture a little into Euro-jargon. The programme known as "human capital and mobility" is a specific programme line in the Community's third framework programme for research and development for 1990 to 1994. Framework programme 3 has been agreed as a rolling programme—that is, overlapping with the one before and, we expect, the one that will follow. It has reduced the 22 programme lines in framework programme 2 to only six. At a cost of 518 million ecu—about £370 million—it is the third largest programme in the third framework.
As the explanatory memorandum explains, the human capital programme is the particular responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and is of special significance to the five United Kingdom research councils. It follows on from three existing programmes under framework 2—SCIENCE, economic science and large facilities. Let me stress that the science programme is "horizontal"—it provides support for science in all areas of the natural sciences. Once the negotiations are more advanced, we shall be submitting a supplementary explanatory memorandum providing greater detail about the programme, as requested in the 30th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
The Commission's original proposal was issued on 28 April 1990. It proposed a programme entirely focused on support for research training, including the funding of 5,000 individual scientists, some through the development of networks of laboratories. I think it fair to say that this proposal caused some surprise and concern. There had been no formal process of consultation with member country representatives and the programme did not obviously continue the work and activities current under the SCIENCE, large facilities and SPES—stimulation programme for economic sciences—programmes.
We were, of course, fully aware of worries about this within the United Kingdom science community. We also knew of preliminary indications of concern on the same score from the European Parliament. In our judgment,


those problems were caused in the past by an absence of management committees for the three programmes. I shall return to management in a moment.
The explanatory memorandum to Parliament set out the Government's priorities for the programme in general terms. They were: to secure clear continuation of valued, existing activities; to achieve separation of the programme into four separate elements; to ensure visibility and transparency of scientific advice; and to ensure sound management and evaluation arrangements.
Since then, the thrust of United Kingdom activity—in co-operation with Community partners—has been to advance these priorities for inclusion in the programme.
If I could deal for a moment with procedure, the proposal comprises a brief formal element couched in legal terms with annexes that describe the content, management and funding distribution in more detail. Discussion has been taking place in recent weeks in an ad hoc group of CREST—the Scientific and Technical Research Committee—the senior body of scientific officials from member states, and this is likely to be resumed in January. Its aim has been to develop more widely acceptable proposals for the explanatory annexes. I am happy to be able to tell the House that very substantial progress has been made and that the United Kingdom has played a significant and constructive part, through the presentation of detailed suggestions for modifications to the Commission's original text. I believe that it would be useful to tell the House how the consensus is emerging.
First, there is a continuation of existing activities. The revised text, which still exists only as unofficial drafts, makes it clear that the programme should act as a natural continuation of, and extension from, the three programmes that I have mentioned. Of course, this is a new programme, so it will be important to build in a new dimension of coherence and complementarity between the various activities. The programme will therefore specify arrangements to support research training fellowships and maintain the sort of support for networks and twinnings currently achieved under the SCIENCE programme.
A consensus is emerging that there should be four elements, as the United Kingdom has proposed. There are the two that I have just mentioned and support for large facilities—primarily for access by visiting researchers, but with some scope for improving and enhancing facilities—and for a new series of European science conferences. We expect the European science Foundation in Strasbourg to be involved in these.
Achieving those objectives will depend crucially on the scientific advice. Great importance is rightly attached by the United Kingdom scientific community to the proper use of peer review in determining project support. At present, the Commission's advisers are the main source of advice in the three existing programmes under the second framework that I mentioned. However, the recent overall decision on management in Community programmes, called—I ask the House for its tolerance again—the "Comitology" decision, requires all programmes to have management committees, several different varieties of which are available.
That raises the question of how the implementation of this programme should be influenced and guided through advice from individual scientists; input from member states, including their national science organisations; and the Commission, whose legal responsibility it is to implement decisions of the Council of Ministers. There has

been discussion of this quite recently in Brussels, on the basis of detailed proposals from the United Kingdom. They have yet to be endorsed, but would provide a clear framework within which the role of each of the three sources of advice and influence would be defined.
The United Kingdom and several other member countries are advocating what is known as a type 3 committee, not the type 1 committee that the Commission has advocated in its formal proposal. I could rather quickly get into a thicket of technicalities and the House might not care to follow me too deeply into it, but, briefly, a type 3 committee has a greater capacity to influence the Commission's activities, as opposed to being just advisory.
The United Kingdom has been pressing for explicit reference to the need to define objectives for the programmes that can subsequently be externally evaluated. We believe that there is considerable scope far improvement in evaluation, and that view appears to be accepted by the Commission, which has recently been making greater efforts in that direction.
The United Kingdom has clear objectives for this important programme and we have been pursuing them with energy and application. We shall have to wait two or three months for a formal decision in the Council of Ministers. If enacted in the form that we advocate, we believe that United Kingdom scientists will derive substantial benefit from the programme, as indeed they have derived substantial benefit from the three programmes that I mentioned under framework programme 2. This programme is designed to foster and to extend the process of international collaboration in European science. We believe that to be important and, subject to the changes that I have outlined, the programme can be an useful further step in the right direction.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the programme and to the words that he chose to describe the Government's reaction to the initial proposals.
The Commission's proposal came very much from the personal output of Commissioner Pandolfi, a vice-president of the Commission. As the Minister said, it was issued without prior consultation and apparently without very much discussion in the Commission. The Minister said that the reaction of member Governments was one of surprise and concern.
We must consider what was originally proposed and how much it has changed. The original proposal was, I think, that some 80 per cent. of the 518 million ecu programme would be spent on fellowships, mainly post-doctoral fellowships, and that they would provide some 5,000 person years. Worked out as a proportionate share of United Kingdom contributions to European Community funding, that is about £11 million per annum from the United Kingdom.
The reaction of Governments was that the proposal was too large for the research training field, that it was too concentrated and that it proposed too big an increase in the number of fellowships. We must bear it in mind that up to 1985 the number of fellowships within European programmes was running below 50, but it increased from 150 in 1987 to 350 in 1988, so there has been a large recent increase, mainly due to the biology programme. The proposal was to increase it to 1,000 per annum.
The scaling back in the proposals, which are being circulated informally, means that the fellowship programme will be reduced from 80 to 50 per cent., that research networks and twinning should account for 30 per cent., the use of large facilities for 15 per cent. and European scientific conferences for 5 per cent. That will reduce the number of person years from 1,000 to 600 per year. From the soundings that I have taken, the British feeling is that the research networks should get a larger share than the 30 per cent. proposed. Matters are still not decided and a decision is not expected before April.
To see the background to this feeling, it is useful to look at what happened under the second framework programme in the fellowship programme. That was admirably evaluated by a panel under Heinrich Pfeiffer. It was a model of how to carry out evaluation. I know of no comparable evaluation of a comparable activity of a research council in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom received some 6 per cent. of the fellowships under the second framework programme but hosted some 33 per cent. of fellows. The United Kingdom produces 25 per cent. of the doctorates in the European Community compared with 27 per cent. in Germany and 25 per cent. in France. By comparison with that 25 per cent. of the doctorates produced, we received only 6 per cent. of the post-doctoral fellowships. Germany received 12 per cent., France 20 per cent. and Portugal—which produces only 1 per cent. of the doctorates—received 10 per cent. of the fellowships.
That created the somewhat extraordinary position in which Portugal was getting more fellowships than it had doctors to receive them—fellowships amounted to some 116 per cent. of the doctorates awarded in Portugal. Greece came second, with 46 per cent. followed by Belgium with 12 per cent. and Italy, 9 per cent.; Spain, 7 per cent.; the Netherlands, 6 per cent.; France, 3 per cent.; Germany, 2 per cent.; and the United Kingdom only 1 per cent. Only 1 per cent. of British doctorates had the expectation of getting a European Community fellowship.
With the best will in the world, that seems a bit odd. There is clearly an imbalance. Why? Is the United Kingdom a favourite destination because we speak English? Is it because we have a fine scientific tradition upon which scientists in Europe are anxious to draw? It is healthy to look at the reasons given by the fellows for seeking to work in particular countries and laboratories. Only one third of the fellows said that they considered the reputation of the host laboratory as an important consideration and only one fifth felt that the reputation of the supervisor was a consideration. Eighty-four per cent. said that the main reason was their wish to live abroad and to gain international experience. Is the United Kingdom acting as a surrogate America for footloose scientists in Europe who come, perhaps not for the beer, but for something other than scientific enlightenment?
Understandably, the evaluation report urged that there should be a much sharper rationale and objectives, a much clearer idea and style and an appropriate management system. The rationale that the Pfeiffer pannel suggested was a programme that seeks to achieve the movement of outstanding individuals to research institutions of their choice, that being the best way to transfer ideas. But it depends on what one means by "outstanding". I heard one

scientist say to another, "Of course, his Nobel prize was only in medicine." Perhaps "outstanding" in the report does not quite mean those standards.
If one looks at the standards of a Medical Research Council post-doctoral fellowship, a Commonwealth fund fellow in the United States or a Harkness fellow, it seems that the standards aimed at in the human capital and mobility programme are somewhat different. We should be clear on that. The aim is not really to cater for the outstanding research scientist who will clearly be a leader in his generation. It is to provide a basic groundwork experience for a substantial proportion of working research scientists. That is a wholly rational objective and it provides a realistic context in which to look at the scheme.
The Pfeiffer panel said that the rationale should be to increase sharply the number of researchers who have been trained in another country. That fits in with the widening of the international background of the good, working, practical research scientist. However, when the panel discusses objectives, the abundance of them suggests that any one of them seems not to be strong enough to justify a programme of such magnitude. The panel speaks of excellence, mobility, diversity, transfer of technology, exchange of methodology, use of large research facilities, multi-disciplinarity, reduction of the brain drain of scientists leaving Europe, integration of the less-favoured regions and the openness to scientists from the European Free Trade Association and from eastern Europe. That is admirable, but the abundance of objectives suggests that there is still a lack of focus and of clear intention. If we recognise that the rationale aims to achieve a widespread international experience as an element in the experience of young scientists, mobility is a sufficient objective.
Where do the proposals leave us in terms of the prospect for the bulk of the programme? We are still talking about a substantial number of scientist years—perhaps not 5,000, but it would be somewhat over 3,000, or 600 per annum. On past figures, the numbers coming to the United Kingdom might be 200 and on the old ratios, the numbers going from the United Kingdom might be 30 to 40. If the United Kingdom came up to the levels of France and of Germany, it might be about 60 to 70. That means that the number of scientists to be received into the United Kingdom is larger than the number of scientists financed at this level by any research council, and the number leaving the United Kingdom would be as large as a big research council. We are not talking about a marginal element in the post-doctoral experience and training of scientists in the United Kingdom. Is that what we want? It may be, but there are some sordid practical points to consider first.
How will the Treasury argue about the additionality of the expenditure? Will the Treasury argue that the number of scientists received in this country should be counted as expenditure from the science budget, or will it count the number of scientists of British origin who are studying abroad as the figure to be notionally charged against the science budget—or neither?
What should our attitude be? Seeing the broad shape of the scheme, should we welcome it as spreading British influence, the British scientific tradition and the British scientific culture, or should we be cautious about losing British know-how and misapplying scarce British resources needed for British science?
I come down firmly on the view that we should continue to and be glad to extend the influences of British scientific culture. That is of undoubted benefit to the country in the long run, and to Europe. We must also go on to argue that if imbalance and unevenness are inevitable in the structure of a programme such as this, they must be redressed in some way. The pressures from the Government have been to try to redress them within the human capital and mobility programme; hence the call for an increase in support for research networks and twinning access to services provided in large research facilities, and for the organisation of European scientific conferences. I do not think that that goes wide enough, because I do not think that the imbalance can be redressed in that way.
If we look at where British scientific and technological interests lie, we can see a pressing need to increase our technological competitiveness. There are substantial areas where we can learn a great deal from other European countries. For example, there is obviously a capability in production engineering in Germany that is not as strongly represented in the United Kingdom. Although Britain produces admirable industrial designers, their use in British industry falls far behind the use of industrial designers in Italian industry. There will be other areas in which we have much to learn from other European countries and the redress of the balances should be sought across the European framework programmes as a whole.
If that is the framework of thinking, what about the other heads of expenditure under this line in the framework programme? The scientific networks are undoubtedly important. It is of great value to be able to travel and visit other people working in the same areas. If one compares the freedom with which, let us say, British Aerospace travels to and from Toulouse on the airbus project with the parsimony with which co-operating groups of scientists are able to travel between universities in France and the United Kingdom, one can see that there is a gross inefficiency in the networking of scientists.
To suggest that extra money is needed to staff large facilities implies that something has gone wrong with the budgeting since the facilities were first proposed. The budgeting should have provided for efficient use of the facilities on the scale at which they were being created. It is arguable that international access to those facilities is different from just increasing the purely British access. That should have been covered one way or another and it should not be a permanent feature of a programme such as this. For example, one does not build a school and then institute a separate programme to produce children to fill it. One does not build a power station and then set about finding a market for the power generated. The operating expense of large facilities needs to be planned integrally with the capital cost from the beginning.
The subject of European conferences raises a separate issue. It is admirable that the European Science Foundation should undertake the task of organising them, but, in itself, the foundation deserves consideration and funding on a basis different from merely the organisation of conferences. Conferences may be an important part of communication, but the European Science Foundation, as the meeting place of the science funding bodies of the different European countries, warrants a larger role than merely the organisation of conferences. If it has that larger role, the organisation of conferences is purely incidental to it.
I now come to the management of the programme. Is the practice of choosing institutions and allowing them to choose fellows right, regardless of whether it is supervised by a type I committee, for which the Commission argues, or a type 3 committee which, as the Minister explained, gives greater powers to the scientists to influence the Commission. That raises a wider question about methods of evaluation and organisation of national research funding.
The Pfeiffer panel is an admirable model of how to go about evaluation. However, if that model were applied to national funding programmes of scientific activities some major issues would be raised. There are certainly grounds for unease in the United Kingdom. For example, the level of grant for doctoral students is appallingly low and there is a lack of career prospects for young scientists once they are trained. There is a lack of follow-up by the research councils of former grant-holders or even principal investigators.
There are similar problems in France, such as the rigidity of the CNRS. In Germany, the length of the apprenticeship period is excessive. The apprentice scientist does not get out from under the professor until his mid-thirties. In Italy, the number of jobs which individuals hold is a problem.
I do not in the least wish to tear up the entire structure of European science and start again, but there should be consultation between the authorities in different countries about how they see national patterns evolving in relation to the European pattern. The machinery does not exist within the United Kingdom Government at present to make an appropriate contribution to such dialogue.
The Minister who opened the debate is not responsible for the European framework programme. The Minister who is responsible not only is a member of another House but belongs to another Department. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for representing Britain on science programmes in the European Community.
Following an interesting report in The Independent yesterday, we look forward to hearing the result of the Prime Minister's reflections over Christmas on the organisation of the machinery of government in Britain. The article said of the structure within the United Kingdom and Britain:
science and technology has been crippled in terms of representation in Brussels, compared to the French and the Germans. Both these countries have strong, central ministries for research and technology, headed by forceful politicians who have secured their national advantage in negotiations with the European Commission. In contrast, putting the EC case for British technology has been the responsibility of the junior Minister in the DTI, whereas scientific research which falls within the DES's remit has gone unrepresented.
That is not satisfactory management of United Kingdom science. Participation in shaping European science for the future must be a major consideration in the appropriate machinery of Government in Britain. We cannot simply ignore the structures that exist in other European Community member countries.
That is nowhere more starkly borne home than in the programme that we are debating, with a fair degree of information about what is going on; it costs some £11 million of British public expenditure. Yet tomorrow the Science and Engineering Research Council will make decisions on how to make good the shortfall from the science budget announced by the Government of some £40 million in the next fiscal year. That has been done without


any debate in this place or any consideration by Ministers about the specific effects on the SERC of the decisions in the science budget.
British science is in a deeply unhappy state. European programmes cannot possibly make good the troubles that we face, but at least we can give this programme a cautious welcome in the sense that it is a building block in a framework which can be built to the greater advantage of the United Kingdom in a more adequate framework of science policy.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not wish to add a great deal to what has been said. I agree with the comments by those on both Front Benches. The Minister managed to open the debate with a clarity which described technology without being too technical and comitology without being comatose. The complexities of the programme are great. Indeed, it is difficult for the House in such a short debate to understand and explore in detail precisely what is being provided for.
I agree with the burden of some comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about shortcomings in research, particularly blue sky research, in the United Kingdom in recent years. When one talks to university vice-chancellors and principals one hears the complaint year on year that not enough pure research is taking place and that industry is leading the nature of research, which means that research tends to be rather too specific. A consequence is that many university laboratories and engineering houses have become testing shops for products which have already been developed.
It is welcome to see a programme in the European Community which appears to allow for a considerable amount of mainly blue sky research to take place. It is to be hoped that a consequence of the programme will be that original thought, original design and original technique will come within Europe and be developed throughout industry.
I agree with the emphasis of the motion on enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness. I hope that the Government will ensure that this programme does not disappear into the European bureaucracy and that we can evaluate its contribution to science within industry.
The programme will be a success if it means that European companies make products and employ people to manufacture products that bring us to the forefront of world science and technology, which will mean that we compete fully with the Japanese and Americans. However, if it merely ensured that scientists had the opportunity to partake in some nice, interesting research that had no ultimate practical applications, it would be a failure. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that, within the Community, this programme is fully monitored so that we may see some real results which will enable us to point to another European success in research and development.

Mr. Alan Howarth: This has been a helpful debate. It has been useful to the House to hear the views of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and the hon.

and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), both of whom represent their Front Benches. It is pleasing that there has been considerable agreement among the parties on much of the ground that has been covered.
The hon. Gentleman wondered why such a high proportion of beneficiaries under the science programme in framework 2 had come to this country. As he surmised, I suspect that it is because of the strength of science and the attractiveness of our country to European students to work and learn here. That is part of my response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. British scientists aspire to further opportunities. We all want more resources to be made available for science and to see the extraordinary wealth of scientific talent in this country find its fullest opportunity. But I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that public expenditure in support of the science base has increased by 23 per cent. above inflation during the period of Conservative rule. We have not stinted on resources. There are periods when expansion is faster and slower, but let nobody doubt the desire of the Government to give the best support we can, on behalf of society at large, to the quality and achievements of British science.
I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that industry was playing perhaps too large a part—was making up some kind of shortfall—in support of science. Many others believe that there has not been a sufficiently strong research and development effort in British industry. It is partly for that reason that the Government have chosen to withdraw funding from near-market research, so making it inevitably a requirement of our industries that they invest in the research that they properly should be doing themselves. By that means, we are able to transfer the resources that would otherwise be spent in the area of near-market research to pure science and that is already leading to a strengthening of our science base.
I am anxious to respond to some of the points of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. I was in sympathy with almost everything he said about European framework programmes 2 and 3. It is right that evaluation needed improving and that the Pfeiffer report passed some very severe strictures on the evaluation that took place. One of our primary concerns is to make sure that in the commitment of substantial added resources to that programme, we make sure that the priorities are sensibly identified, that there is proper management, that what we are supporting is support for excellence and that we are developing a programme for education and training for the body of scientists, who should benefit from an experience of quality in Europe as a whole.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South stressed that we had not done as well as we might under framework programme 2 and the SCIENCE programme. It is fair to remind him that, from the point of view of experience so far, on average the United Kingdom has received back 22 per cent. of framework programme funds, which is more than a juste retour.
Under the SCIENCE programme, which we expect the human mobility programme to continue, nearly 30 per cent. of all recipient laboratories were in the United Kingdom. I take it as a benefit to us that we had so many people coming to study and work here. I take it as a matter of pride for British science, as does the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, that the United Kingdom took part in more than 70 of the 114 laboratory twinnings.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the range of objectives in framework programme 3 and in the human mobility line was perhaps too diffuse. He recited a series of quoted purposes which he finally characterised as admirable, and on that we all agree. But again, the key point is sharpness of focus to ensure that the objectives are clearly identified and are right.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South rated as a high priority, and a valuable feature of the programme, the emphasis on mobility and networking. Later in his remarks he referred to the problems of developing satisfactory career structures and opportunities for research scientists. Those are serious problems, and it is a help to know that the framework programme will at least ensure that there is a well-designed, full range of opportunities for further education and training for post-doctoral scientists. That will give strength to those who have the benefit of participating in the programme and will mean that they are better placed in the competitive stakes for subsequently seeking more permanent appointments in their careers.
Clearly, in the world of modern science in which there is a high degree of specialisation, if people are working at or near the frontiers of science there will inevitably be difficulties in the provision of long-term career opportunities for people who are highly specialised. The best people proceed with confidence from one contract to the next, if they do not actually hold long-term university posts or have long-term appointments as professional scientists. But if others move from academic work into industrial employment, it is not necessarily a terrible misfortune. There are great benefits for our economy and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to the need for improved technology transfer and for the high degree of academic skill that some of our best scientists and engineers have to be transferred to and reflected in the production processes in United Kingdom industry. Therefore, I am not discouraged when I view the scene.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that the Treasury will take a more benign view than he expects. I do not indulge in vacuous optimism, but we should put the expenditure on the programme in proportion. The participation of the Department of Education and Science in framework programme 3, involves under 2 per cent. of the science budget. Therefore, our participation does not have any serious or realistically measurable effect on the size of the science budget as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's fears about additionality are groundless.
The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems of management at the large facilities in western Europe, on which we keep a vigilant watch. He will have noted that last week, in a decision shared with our Community partners, we refused to agree to a proposed 2 per cent. increase in the CERN budget for 1992. We are determined that there should be proper control of such massive organisations which dispose of immense sums of money.
A positive feature of the programme is that it intends, realistically, through the mobility programme, to bring those facilities into fuller use and to give a larger number of scientists the opportunity to use them and gain experience.
I was pleased that we had such a wide measure of agreement, both in our scepticism of aspects of the

management of framework programme 2 and in the essential purposes that we recognise as valuable in framework programme 3.
I parted company with the hon. Gentleman on his familiar strictures about the condition of British science. I shall not repeat what I said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. As for the observations of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South about the structure and organisation, and responsibility in Government for science, he looks forward with tremendous relish to the day when the millenium dawns and he presides over a separate Ministry of Science. However, he and all those involved should reflect carefully on whether an individual, specialist science ministry would carry the force and clout in Whitehall that he and I would want it to do, in recognition of our concerns for the well-being of British science.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that some of us went to the interesting lecture, excellently presented, by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) at the Royal Society? I understand that the hon. Member for Havant is taking a group of scientists to see the Prime Minister on this very subject on, I think, 14 January. This should be a question that is open to discussion. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education arid Science is to be there—perhaps he will report to the House on that interesting meeting.

Mr. Howarth: I think that we can all readily say that my right hon. Friends are concerned to find the best system within Government for supporting British science.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am prompted to intervene by the last interchange, the question of the responsibility for science within government, and by some of the Minister's comments—although I do not want to be as specific as the debate, which naturally focused on a particular programme.
At last summer's British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Swansea, it was widely commented that there is still inadequate recognition in government of the importance of science. This is not meant as a personal criticism—as the Minister knows—but that is borne out by the very fact that within the DES, science is so sidelined that it is the part-responsibility of a non-Secretary of State—that is, of a junior Minister—and has a relatively small budget. It is virtually buried in the Department of Education and Science, instead of being an activity which could be influential across many Departments. That matter is of considerable academic and practical concern.
I do not dissent from the Minister's claims about the Treasury's increase in science spending in the most recent public expenditure round. However, he must not be complacent. He will no doubt recall the presidential address given at the British association's conference. Although it did not relate specifically to further and higher education and current academic performance among both postgraduates and leading scientists, it foretold a future of some doom if our education system does not significantly improve.
This country cannot afford to be complacent. In the forecast era of considerably more mobility within Europe, we shall be more at risk from scientific interchange in more


competitive circumstances and suffer some disadvantage in developing the seed corn of scientific advance, unless we show considerably more commitment to the prerequisites for more successful science.

Mr. Alan Howarth: As I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), we have made a major increase of 23 per cent. in real terms in science funding during the life of this Government. That is taken on board by all scientists, and naturally the British Association does as much pleading as others for yet more increased expenditure.
I dissent very much from the hon. Gentleman when he says that science is somehow sidelined in my Department. My right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for both education and science, and he gives high weighting to his responsibilities in relation to the latter. Science pervades the whole of modern government. There is not a Department in Whitehall to which science is not immensely important.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) must always take that into account in his consideration of what might be an appropriate structure. Will he, in his putative Department of Science, be such a powerful ringmaster that he will be able to crack his whip and have the big beasts respond in the way that he wants?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was absolutely right to say that science teaching in our schools must be improved. We agree entirely and that is why we introduced the subject into the national curriculum, which is laying the foundations for an across-the-board increase in the level of attainment in scientific studies.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his mini-speech by way of an intervention. As to the structure of government, there is a proper constitutional argument to be made about whether an independent science Ministry

could be justified, in terms of having the clout within government. Such an argument could properly be made in respect of any proposed Department.
There is a widely held view within the scientific community that science is not perceived as sufficiently important in the whole focus of Government investment and interest, not just in the Department of Education and Science, and the president of the British Association set out what will happen if we do not attach significant importance to it and provide more investment. That the Government are aware of the dangers of complacency is a start. It would be a good thing if the House and the Government put science more regularly on the agenda, because without good science we shall not do very well in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed.

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, in respect of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That Sir George Young be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. David Lightbown be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Darren Brook

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick ]

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is with great sadness that I have to bring the case of the late Darren Brook, a young offender, aged 19, to the Floor of the House of Commons. Darren was convicted of an assault on a publican. It was his first offence. He had never been in trouble before. He was of previous good character. He was given a nine-months prison sentence in a prison for young offenders. He was taken to Durham jail, a hard-line prison. There he was kept for three days. During those three days, he was subjected to the most brutal treatment of any prisoner in the prison, the perpetrator of which is now serving a life sentence.
During those three days, Darren was bullied and beaten, and even had his head shaved. All hon. Members should read what the court heard went on in those three days. It is a very sad case, and an indictment of our prison system. He was beaten up, he had a black eye for at least two days, he had a severe cut on one side of his eye and one on his hand, which was so swollen that his knuckles could not be seen. At some time during the 56 hours that he was in Durham prison, his head was shaved.
The prisoners saw what happened, but in prison no one squeals. No one says anything. They knew that this lad was being subjected to bullying and brutality, but no one else heard or saw it.
At the end of the trial, Judge Bell asked why Brook had been locked up with Carter, the man serving a life sentence, who had a long criminal record, and why prison officers did not notice injuries to Brook when other inmates clearly spotted them. After being told that an internal investigation had found no explanation, the judge said:
I take the view that what has been revealed indicates barbaric practices perpetrated by one prisoner on another, which should not have been tolerated by any civilised society.
All this happened in one of Her Majesty's prisons. A young lad, a first offender, went to serve his punishment there and ended up in a wooden box. That should not happen in this day and age.
I have already called for an independent inquiry into why this happened. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has called for one too. I do not know whether there will be one. I am told that the governor of Durham prison has conducted an internal inquiry. That means nothing, because he has done his job in his own kingdom, and he would certainly try to paint it white.
Certain questions must be asked. Was there a lack of supervision? Was there undermanning at the prison? Could it happen again? That is what the parents of the child came to see me about—

Mr. John Cummings: Does my hon. Friend recall the case of Richard Rowland, who committed suicide in Durham prison 18 months ago? His family had begged and pleaded with the prison authorities to supervise him because they were extremely worried about his mental health. That was not done, and he committed suicide while his cellmates slept. That, too, was due to manning levels. Something must be done to afford some security to the relations of men serving time.

Mr. Campbell: I could not agree more. I was coming to that point. Supervision is important in prisons such as Durham. I have contacted the authorities who run the gaol. They told me that, at certain times of day, they are not in control of it. Someone had better go and have a look at Durham prison, or we shall have another Brixton on our hands.
There were no regular cell inspections; the authorities have not got the time. There was no observation, because they do not have the time. The officers do not work much overtime, and if they do, they are given days off in lieu—if they are lucky.
Why was this young man not sent to a young offenders prison straight away? Why are young offenders sent to hard prisons and put in cells with hardened criminals? These questions can be answered only by an independent inquiry. There should also have been an inquiry into the suicide case that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) mentioned.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How did the man die?

Mr. Campbell: He died from bullying and beatings. He was forced to tear his pillow case into strips, whereupon the perpetrator tied a noose to the bars of the cell and made the victim put his head into it. The third man in the cell put a towel over his head because he did not want to watch. He said afterwards that he heard Brook say, "I don't want to die."
The perpetrator, who is now serving a life sentence, kicked the stool away, and that was the end of Darren Brook. I have heard it said, although it has been denied, that if prisoners are in a cell with someone who hangs themselves, they get remission because of the trauma that they have experienced.

Mr. Skinner: Is that so?

Mr. Campbell: It is true. That will also come out in the inquiry—but in an independent inquiry, not one carried out by the governor. The House and the Opposition demand an independent inquiry.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am sure that we can agree that it is a matter of great regret that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) needed to accomplish this task this evening, and to raise this subject. I think that he was quite right to do so, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) would probably also have wished to be associated with the debate.
I do not think that I need to add to what has already been said by the hon. Members for Blyth Valley and for Easington (Mr. Cummings) about the distressing nature of the events surrounding the death and murder of Darren Brook. The death of any prisoner in custody is a matter of great regret. It is especially tragic when it occurs in such violent circumstances, and involves such a young man. It is a waste of life. It is a grievous loss to his family and to his friends, and I take the opportunity to express sympathy to them on behalf of the whole prison service.
I should add that such an incident is also obviously a traumatic experience for the prison. I share the hon. Member's profound concern. There were certainly warning signs which could, and perhaps should, have been apparent despite the extremely short interval between


Darren Brook's reception and his death at the hands of his cellmate. As the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has said, the cellmate has recently been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, but I cannot let the fact that a fellow inmate has been found guilty of this horrific murder absolve me, or the prison, from our responsibility to protect anyone in our care.
As the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has said, Darren Brook was received into the young offender wing at Durham Prison on 3 January, having been sentenced to nine months custody in a young offenders institution, for offences of wounding and occasioning actual bodily harm. It is normal practice for young offenders sentenced to a period of custody to be received into a young offender wing at a local prison to be assessed for allocation to a suitable young offender institution. It is important to stress that young offenders at Durham are kept separate from the rest of the prison and do not mix with adult offenders.
However, as the hon. Gentleman said, early on the morning of 6 January, Darren Brook was found hanged in his cell, which he shared with two other young offenders. His two cellmates at first claimed that he had committed suicide. The police were immediately called in, and one of the cellmates, Kenneth Carter, was subsequently charged with the murder. As we know, he has since been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
It is clear that there was lack of supervision during the period between Mr. Brook's reception into the prison and his subsequent death. The hon. Gentleman has correctly pointed out that statements from other prisoners appear to show that Carter assaulted Darren Brook on the evening of 4 January, and that he had a swollen right eye, broken skin on his right hand and a bruised left hand as a result.
During the course of the next day, the young prisoners on the wing were allowed a recreation period, supervised by prison staff. No member of staff noticed the injury to Darren Brook's eye, or the other injuries, either then or during the rest of the day. Darren Brook did not complain or seek medical treatment for his injuries. Nor did he report the bullying by his cellmates to a member of staff. However, it is clear from the evidence of the third occupant of the cell that his condition was the result of attacks by Carter.
When this happened, the newly-appointed governor had not yet taken up his post. He arrived on 7 January and immediately began a full investigation into both the circumstances of the death and the management of the young offenders wing. It is therefore not true to say that the governor was, in effect, trying to cover his tracks. He was a new appointment; he had not been associated with the prison before; and he came in to find a very serious problem.
Let me explain what happened subsequently: it may allay the hon. Gentleman's fears somewhat. The governor discovered several shortcomings in the management of the young offender wing. There was no selection process for allocating young offenders to cells; the majority of young offenders were housed three to a cell; the young offender regime was poor, with little opportunity for constructive use of time or activities to help personal development. Certainly staff continuity on the wing was poor; because of the wide range of work undertaken by local prisons such

as Durham, together with the importance of servicing the courts, there were frequent abrupt changes of staff on the wing.
No cell inspections or visits to young offenders were taking place, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has pointed out. Too many young offenders were being housed in Durham: at the time of the incident, there were 40, and allocations to young offender institutions were often unreasonably delayed.
The governor reported his findings, and made immediate changes to improve conditions. The practice of housing young offenders three to a cell ceased immediately. Young offenders are now allocated to young offender institutions within three days of being sentenced, with the vast majority being transferred to suitable establishments within one week of arrival at Durham. The number of young offenders held has been considerably reduced: at present, only 14 are being held in Durham.
The regime has been improved, and, although the wing is not intended to replace a young offender institution and will never be able to offer the wide range of educational and recreational facilities that are available at a proper young-offender establishment, young offenders now have the opportunity to attend education classes and enjoy an enhanced programme of physical recreation.
Staff continuity on the wing has been made a priority, and there is now an identifiable wing manager. Wing supervision has also been enhanced by the daily visit of a member of the senior prison management. In addition, all young offenders are now seen on a weekly basis by a member of the board of visitors. But perhaps the most important change is that staff on the wing are now given explicit instructions, with clear briefing, on their responsibility to detect bullying.
At the conclusion of the trial of Kenneth Carter, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Potts, asked the prison governor to comment on the circumstances surrounding the murder. The governor described the changes that I have just outlined. Mr. Justice Potts expressed his satisfaction at the steps taken at the prison to avoid a similar occurrence—and I believe that the correct action has been taken to avoid any further mishaps of this kind.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley made a number of allegations, and I hope that what I have said has allayed his fears. I fully understand his deep and passionate feeling about the circumstances surrounding the death of Darren Brook.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I am pleased to learn that changes have been made, but I must again make my most important allegation. I have spoken to the people who run the prison, and I have been told that, at certain times of the day, they are not in control. They say that they are overworked and undermanned, and have not enough time. The Minister has said that things have changed, but that is what I was told today, and, if that is what I am being told today, as far as I am concerned nothing has changed.

Mrs. Rumbold: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. If that is his most recent information, I shall take the matter back and make inquiries on his behalf. I shall try to reassure him later, by letter, if not by means of a personal visit. I am making a great effort to try to visit as many institutions as I can and intend to come to the north-east to see for myself some of the institutions and establishments there. It is important absolutely to satisfy


oneself that our establishments are run as humanely and satsifactorily as possible. Given the circumstances surrounding local prisons in many busy towns and cities, it is even more important to ensure that, having happened once, such an occurrence does not happen in the future. It is my intention—I know that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that such an event should not occur in future.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that bullying among the young offender population is a problem that the prison service shares with many other residential institutions. In 1984, we took action to give guidance to all those who deal with young offenders. We gave advice on how to detect and prevent the spread of

bullying among young offenders. We made the advice widely available throughout the young offender system. The nature of the bullying of Darren Brook by Kenneth Carter, which escalated in the course of 24 hours from simple physical abuse to murder, was of a very different order from anything previously encountered in the prison service. Obviously, we hope that that was a unique event, but certain lessons have definitely been learned.
As I have said, I give my personal undertaking that I shall investigate the hon. Gentleman's assertions and come back to him in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.